Sorry I missed this thread. I will work on the list. Problem is I am not working until next monday. But I will see what I can do in my sparetime.
Thing is, this entire Rhino situation makes me somewhat uneasy if there is a huge time pressure. We probably should postpone the big switch to a 4.1 release and go with the old code. (Not that I do not have confidence in the new one, i personally think it is better than the old code and less buggy, but losing test coverage is a no go) Am Mo., 20. Feb. 2023 um 20:58 Uhr schrieb Volodymyr Siedlecki < [email protected]>: > Hello, > > The old-tck completed, and the results are better than expected. The only > failures were found here: > > jsf/spec/ajax > - 5 / 5 Fail (1 is excluded entirely) > jsf/spec/render/commandlink > - 3 /3 Fail > jsf/spec/resource/packaging/classpath > - 4 / 8 Fail > jsf/spec/view/protectedview > - 1 / 2 Fail > > 23 from the new TCK and 13 from the old TCK bring us to 36. > > The new TCK failures could be fixed via selenium updates as before. As for > the old TCK, it would be best to move the whole application and run it on a > selenium driver. The tests run from within a servlet, so all we would then > need to do is look at the response (ie. check for"Test PASSED" ) > > I can start looking at the old tck (though it might be more complicated > than what's suggested above). Werner (or anyone else), could you work on > the new TCK with the list of tests sent in an earlier email? > > Thanks, > Volodymyr > > On 2023/02/20 17:13:18 Paul Nicolucci wrote: > > I did send a quick update to the Faces community: > > https://www.eclipse.org/lists/faces-dev/msg00272.html > > > > Regards, > > > > Paul Nicolucci > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:50 AM Paul Nicolucci <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > If we're not reverting this, then @Werner can you let the Faces > community > > > know that you have more changes coming in? I sent a message hoping we > could > > > get a new TCK out: > https://www.eclipse.org/lists/faces-dev/msg00264.html > > > last week. > > > > > > I hate holding up a MyFaces 4.0.0 release when we were passing the TCK > > > without these changes. I think if this can't be resolved quickly and > with > > > priority, we should really consider reverting. > > > > > > Vlad and I are working with our testing team to try and get a full > list of > > > failures that need to be fixed. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Paul Nicolucci > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:34 AM Thomas Andraschko < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> 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 > > >>> > > >>> > > >
