volosied commented on PR #356:
URL: https://github.com/apache/myfaces/pull/356#issuecomment-1337745728

   Thanks for testing the codebase against the 2.2 TCK. How did you get it set 
up to run against MyFaces? I'm curious as my team's only option is testing 
through Open-Liberty's faces-4.0 feature.
   
   Did your tests use htmlunit or the Selenium?
   
   Which version of the TCK did you use? 4.0.1 or the main branch? We've made 
numerous challenges so far, and a few of the tests have already been updated 
(particularly - removing Mojarra specific checks, such as 
[Issue2674IT](https://github.com/jakartaee/faces/commit/069d2c9b190892af984e59b83d2f8ccd0b61599f)).
   
   Lastly, one issue in the list that I noticed is 
[Issue2439IT#testDisabledBehaviors](https://github.com/jakartaee/faces/blob/master/tck/faces22/ajax/src/test/java/ee/jakarta/tck/faces/test/servlet30/ajax/Issue2439IT.java#L43).
 I had spent some time looking at it previously (but haven't made any jira yet) 
and I agree it's a Java-side issue.  We don't register the handler at all due 
to the return on this line: 
https://github.com/apache/myfaces/blob/main/impl/src/main/java/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/faces/core/AjaxHandler.java#L391
  I removed the return and test still failed because it rendered `onchange=""`. 
 We'd have to include a empty string check to avoid writing on change. Maybe 
there's another way to fix it.  Also, the comment just above the return refers 
to the example below in the JSF 2.0 spec.  Our impl thinks one is an inner and 
the other an outer handler. 
   ```
   “For this example, the inner <f:ajax/> would apply to “button1”. The outer 
(wrapping) <f:ajax> would not be applied, since it is the same type of 
submitting behavior (AjaxBehavior) and the same event type (action).  For this 
example, since the event types are the same, the inner <f:ajax> event overrides 
the outer one.”
   
   <f:ajax event=”click”>
      <h:inputText id=”text1”>
         <f:ajax event=”click”/>
      </h:inputText>
   </f:ajax>
   ``` 
   
   I'm not sure if we should challenge this test or try to fix our 
implementation?  Firstly, Issue2439IT was created due to a syntax error.  
Secondly, does it make sense to have two f:ajax tags for h:inputText for the 
same on change event?  
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to