IMO the goal should be to NOT revert this changes @Werner Could you fix/refactor the tests maybe? I really dont like to revert because TCK uses a technology which doesnt support long time existing JS/HTML features....
Am Mo., 20. Feb. 2023 um 17:16 Uhr schrieb Volodymyr Siedlecki < [email protected]>: > Hello, > > I regret bringing this topic up, but the new JavaScript code in RC5 is > encountering more HTMLUnit trouble. > > I've pulled the RC5 jars into our application server and run our test suite > against it, and we saw about 5-10% of tests fail. > > We have yet to run against the full TCK, but initial runs also show failures > and errors (see list 1). The majority of the failures/errors are caused by > either "missing formal parameter" or "syntax error". > > This issue can be traced back to Rhino not supporting "rest parameters" > (Found https://github.com/mozilla/rhino/issues/652 via > https://github.com/HtmlUnit/htmlunit/issues/232 ). > > > [ERROR] > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee6.viewParamNullValueAjax.Issue4550IT.testViewParamNullValueAjax > Time elapsed: 2.33 s <<< ERROR! ======= EXCEPTION START ======== Exception > class=[net.sourceforge.htmlunit.corejs.javascript.EvaluatorException] > com.gargoylesoftware.htmlunit.ScriptException: missing formal parameter ( > http://localhost:9080/viewParamNullValueAjax/faces/jakarta.faces.resource/faces.js?ln=jakarta.faces#2) > > > Back to the topic of the TCK, the ajax tests (faces22/ajax, faces23/ajax, > etc) were ported over to use the selenium driver, but other tests, which also > use ajax, were not ported (faces23/exactmapping, faces40/inputfile, etc). > Another portion of the TCK that has yet to be tested is the old-tck (which > has thousands of tests, some of which will be hit by these script > exceptions). *We'd be losing testing coverage with the new scripts.* > > If we remove the rest parameters, then our problems might be resolved. It's > not a guarantee and I'm not sure how feasible it would be. > > Unfortunately, though, a revert is the best course of action as I don't think > challenging all of these previously working tests is a sound approach. > > My hope is to have a 4.0.0 release with the previous scripts. This would then > give us time to automate MyFaces to run against the TCK and also move away > from HTMLUnit. > > The new scripts could then be merged at a later time (with more confidence). > > 1) List of New TCK Failures: > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee6.viewParamNullValueAjax.Issue4550IT.testViewParamNullValueAjax > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee8.cdi.Spec1351IT.testInjectValidator > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee8.cdi.Spec1386IT.testInjectFlowMap > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee8.commandScript.Spec613IT.test > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.exactmapping.Spec1260IT.testLinkToNonExactMappedView > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.exactmapping.Spec1260IT.testAjaxFromExactMappedView > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.exactmapping.Spec1260IT.testExactMappedViewLoads > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.exactmapping.Spec1260IT.testPostBackOnLinkedNonExactMappedView > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.exactmapping.Spec1260IT.testPostBackToExactMappedView > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.exactmapping.Spec1260IT.testResourceReferenceFromExactMappedView > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.facelets.Issue4830IT.testUIRepeatResetValues > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.facelets.Issue5078IT.testUIRepeatVisitTreeDuringInvokeApplication > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee8.searchExpression.Issue4331IT.test > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee8.searchExpression.Spec1238IT.test > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee8.uiinput.Issue5081IT.testIssue4734 > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet50.inputfile.Spec1555IT.testMultipleSelectionNonAjax > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet50.inputfile.Spec1555IT.testSingleSelectionNonAjax > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet50.inputfile.Spec1555IT.testMultipleSelectionAjax > ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet50.inputfile.Spec1555IT.testSingleSelectionAjax > > Thanks, > > Volodymyr > >
