I can add that back in...
I did also find it disturbing that they changed the license on the
sources...
What was once this:
<snip>
/**
* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
* or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
* distributed with this work for additional information
* regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
* to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
* "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
* with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
* software distributed under the License is distributed on an
* "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
* KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
* specific language governing permissions and limitations
* under the License.
*/
</snip>
Is now this:
<snip>
/*
* Copyright 2006 The Codehaus.
*
* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*/
</snip>
How does that work anyways... when someone takes ASF code into their
own project?
--jason
On Feb 13, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
I switched our console-testsuite to use Mojo's s-m-p and found that
our tests broke with the following error
testApacheConfigLink
(org.apache.geronimo.testsuite.console.ApacheConfigPortletTest)
Time elapsed: 7.491 sec <<< FAILURE!
com.thoughtworks.selenium.SeleniumException: ERROR: Threw an
exception: selenium.removeCookie is not a function
at com.thoughtworks.selenium.HttpCommandProcessor.doCommand
(HttpCommandProcessor.java:73)
at com.thoughtworks.selenium.HttpCommandProcessor.getString
(HttpCommandProcessor.java:150)
at com.thoughtworks.selenium.DefaultSelenium.getEval
(DefaultSelenium.java:214)
at org.apache.geronimo.testsupport.ExtendedSelenium.removeCookie
(ExtendedSelenium.java:49)
at org.apache.geronimo.testsuite.console.ConsoleTestSupport.logout
(ConsoleTestSupport.java:53)
at
org.apache.geronimo.testsuite.console.ApacheConfigPortletTest.testApac
heConfigLink(ApacheConfigPortletTest.java:43)
Mojo's plugin does not include the user-extension.js that we have
in our plugin.
Cheers
Prasad
On 2/9/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Prasad, when you have a sec, can you see if there are any issues
using the s-m-p from the mojo project with our testsuite?
If not, lets start using that and deprecate the version in genesis...
okay?
--jason
On Feb 9, 2007, at 1:27 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>
> Jason Dillon a écrit :
>> I've not made any changes as of recent, though I will probably
>> update it soonish to support some extra bits to fire off a xvfb
>> instance so I can setup virtual X11 displays for firefox to run
>> under. I've got commit on mojo, so it should be easy enough to
>> collaborate, though Prasad does not... so any changes from him
>> will have to funnel through one of us, or we need to get him
>> commit on mojo.
>
> I don't think it will be a problem for commit access. We are open.
>
>> Anyways, we can start to deprecate the G version and move over to
>> the Mojo version.
>
> cool
>
>> Have you made any changes to it (short of the Selenium version
>> bits I noticed, and some formating)?
>
> I don't think, but we can check it.
>
>> G will need some kinda of non-snapshot in order to use, but that
>> should not be a big deal.
>
> We can release a first version, np.
>
> Emmanuel
>> --jason
>> On Feb 9, 2007, at 12:44 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>>> I'm agree, we don't need 2 plugins but on Mojo, it's more easy to
>>> find it.
>>>
>>> Jason, do you continue to work on it in geronimo? I think it
>>> would be better to work only on the one at Mojo and remove the
>>> one in geronimo
>>>
>>> Emmanuel
>>>
>>> Jason Dillon a écrit :
>>>> Did you tell 'evenisse' to go ahead with moving the plugin to
>>>> the codehaus?
>>>> I don't really mind if it moves over there... but looks like
>>>> that its been done already... and its not really moved, but its
>>>> cloned, which is a massive PITA.
>>>> We really don't need to have 2 plugins...
>>>> --jason
>>>
>
