Thank you as always. Let me know if I can help port over any tests, so we can split the work.
Volodymyr On 2023/02/21 15:31:30 Werner Punz wrote: > 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >> >
