Hi, I think if the enabled parameter isn't provided then it should remain as currently set. Using "openOr true" will result in disabled actions being enabled if the parameter isn't provided, so not quite right but on the right track I think.
I'll check out the IE9 issue on Windows 7 32-bit when I get to work today. Hopefully it is still a non-issue :-) Cheers, Ethan On Sunday, May 15, 2011, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: > Looking at other items for 1.3: > > ------------- > > [ESME-245] <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-245> > > Change in API2.scala / line 506 > > enabled <- S.param("enabled").map(toBoolean) ?~ > S.?("base_rest_api_err_missing_param", "enable")) > > ?~ S.?("base_rest_api_err_missing_param", "enable")) is wrong need to > default to true if present: "openor true" > > ---------------------------------- > > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >> This is now complete, as people may have noticed. And just in time to make >> it into Dick's latest deploy :-) >> >> So, do we still have any blocking issues or can we try to evaluate what we >> see on the latest deploy to figure out if we are ready for release? I think >> the following might be blockers: >> >> ESME-342 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-342> >> >> Sign On button doesn't work in >> IE9<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-342> >> ESME-282 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-282> >> >> When a public message is resent by one user, no other users are able to >> resend it <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-282> >> >> ESME-282 needs to get fixed, but it probably isn't a major issue. ESME-342 >> sounds like a bigger problem. > > Let me take a look at 342 - I once had a similar problem with Chrome > but it appears to have since disappeared. I don't have IE9 on my work > machine, so I can't try it out until I get home. > > >> >> Ethan >> >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> @Ethan - that's fine - no rush. I'm just trying to keep up the momentum. >>> >>> D. >>> >>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Hi Dick, >>> > >>> > On ESME-328, we still have a todo around display of message times. This >>> is >>> > more complicated than I thought, but I do have a strategy now, and I'll >>> > address ESME-308 at the same time, I hope. >>> > >>> > When are we looking to release? I'm on vacation this week without my >>> > computer but I should be able to finish this issue next week. If someone >>> > else wants to do it this week that would be great as well. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Ethan >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected] >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> >> I was looking at the looking at 1.3 status this morning and I have a >>> >> few questions: >>> >> >>> >> @Ethan - can we close ESME-328 "Rewrite the comet timeline"? >>> >> >>> >> @Vladimir is "ESME-332 "There are still some problems with SBT tests" >>> >> still valid after the SBT upgrade? >>> >> >>> >> @Vladimir can we close "ESME-321 Get rid of deprecated methods"? I >>> >> wasn't sure how many deprecated methods will still present. >>> >> >>> >> D. >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >
