Yes... I will work on them, I just converted the first one. This is indeed the usual Rhino Problem. I tackled for the Ajax parts of the TCK!
Expect the fixed scripts to hit the TCK this week, I will simply will fix it in the evening. Vacation or not! Werner Am Di., 21. Feb. 2023 um 16:25 Uhr schrieb Thomas Andraschko < [email protected]>: > 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 >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>
