Dennis, I created the branch for core so feel free to start your experiment!
Sean On 2/13/06, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >It would be really useful, for the purposes of the discussion here, to get > >some feedback on anything missing in the test framework. it was primarily > >designed for testing *applications* and *components*, but might have some > >missing stuff for testing the MyFaces implementation artifacts. Let's > >figure out what you guys need. > > Most ( if not all ) of what MyFaces would need is already there, as the > majority of the tests are for *components*. If you pulled the trigger right > now, the worse case scenario would still allow the tests to go on a diet. > > I have reopened http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294 and > opened http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38627 . > > Only 38294 would matter to myFaces. You fixed most of what the first patch > did on your own (renderKit == facesContext.getRenderKit() ). However the > issue seems to have come back. I think AbstractJsfTestCase.tearDown() would > be a good place for a call to FactoryFinder.releaseFactories() , but this > part was always trivial and is not a part of the second patch. > > A month ago I found it pretty much impossible to test anything in tomahawk > because MockViewHandler.getActionURL and MockViewHandler.getResourceURL were > threw UOEs. This is no longer the case. > > Dennis Byrne > > >
