it would be really great if we just fix the new failing tests, this are only ~10 test classes. the new scripts are really a great benefit for the future
Am Di., 21. Feb. 2023 um 16:10 Uhr schrieb Werner Punz < [email protected]>: > 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 >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> >
