Hi Werner,
I just wanted to check in and see if you were still on target for the end
of the week for the changes you're working on.
Vlad will have a PR up for the tests that were failing in the old tck
tomorrow sometime which will include selenium updates for:
1) jsf/spec/view/protectedview
2) jsf/spec/ajax
3) jsf/spec/render/commandlink
If you can use some help please let us know.
Regards,
Paul Nicolucci
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 10:03 PM Volodymyr Siedlecki <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>
