OK, I jumped in. I posted two versions of a test case that I mostly got from the examples in the doc.
[1] http://people.apache.org/~aharui/NumericStepperTest4.9.swf [2] http://people.apache.org/~aharui/NumericStepperTest.swf The first one is built on 4.9, the second on what is checked into flex-sdk. Unfortunately, there is an undesirable behavior change that becomes apparent if you run the app, select the text in the NumericStepper, and then try to type "-1.5" and hit Tab. In the 4.9 version it changes the label to -1.5 when you hit tab, in the current code it shows NaN as soon as you type the '-' and then again when you type the '.'. So, I'm going to go back to the test cases in the bugs and see if I can find another solution. -Alex On 5/14/13 11:07 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >OK, I will jump in ;-) > > >On 5/14/13 10:51 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > >> Crap, I've run out of time. >> >> EdB >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/14/13 10:15 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: >>> >>>> Alex, >>>> >>>>> exciting, but I feel like there is still enough activity in the >>>>>existing >>>>> Flex SDK to warrant spending time to make sure we don't inject >>>>>issues that >>>>> prevent folks from switching to Apache Flex. And I see it as my >>>>>role to >>>>> tackle the nasty regressions like that ADG cursor issue that you >>>>>looked at >>>>> earlier today that are just going to take too much of volunteer time. >>>> >>>> To be sure: that issue turned out to have nothing to do with ADG at >>>> all. It has it's roots in CursorManager or something deeper. I've >>>> included example code in the JIRA issue that shows and abstracts the >>>> same behaviour in a Button subclass. >>> Yes, thanks for looking at it. I'm still guessing that it has to do >>>with >>> some behavioral difference between FXG and SWF assets, but I won't be >>> getting into it until after I get mustella running clean and checking >>>out >>> this potential issue with bound validators. >>>> >>>>>> It was my understanding that a bug is considered fixed if it doesn't >>>>>> break prior tests and fixes the issue at hand. Am I wrong? >>>>> I think as a volunteer you are welcome to use your definition, but >>>>> unfortunately, even 30,000 mustella tests are not an exhaustive >>>>>check of >>>>> the >>>>> current code and don't pick up performance and memory leak issues, so >>>>> that's >>>>> why I keep quickly scanning commits. To me, if I spend a few >>>>>seconds to >>>>> catch something before it goes out, it is the right use of my time. >>>> >>>> You make it sound like I came up with that 'definition'. I think the >>>> workflow I refer to - fix, test (Mustella, checkintests), commit - is >>>> understood by most committers to be THE way to contribute. If there >>>> are other requirements, we (you?) need to document those so the few >>>> contributors that still dare to touch the SDK know how to properly >>>> work on it... >>>> >>> I guess I thought folks knew that mustella wouldn't catch everything, >>>and >>> even if you think you nailed it, the review process or the bug author >>>might >>> still find something, but I'll try to find time to make that more >>>explicit. >>> >>> But again, as volunteer, you can always say "crap, I've run out of >>>time" and >>> hopefully somebody else will jump in. >>> >>> -- >>> Alex Harui >>> Flex SDK Team >>> Adobe Systems, Inc. >>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >>> >> >> > >-- >Alex Harui >Flex SDK Team >Adobe Systems, Inc. >http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
