I just have issued the pull request, and sorry, that I could not wrap everything up on Friday.
However I noticed that 3 TCK tests in the 2.3 area fail commandScript tests fail.. also on the old codebase so not ajax related! The exactMapping test fails, because myfaces delivers a slightly different pattern and uses xhtml as extension after the navigation Also I could not yet test the CDI test on my test setup, however the tests pass on the raw TCK with Mojarra, so the tests are correct. Either way, the pull request is out! https://github.com/jakartaee/faces/pull/1795 Werner Am Mo., 27. Feb. 2023 um 08:24 Uhr schrieb Werner Punz < [email protected]>: > 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 >>> > >>> > >>> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>
