Hi sorry, did not make it... I will target today. Werner
Am Do., 23. Feb. 2023 um 21:15 Uhr schrieb Paul Nicolucci < [email protected]>: > 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 >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >
