Hey Werner, All the tests (with your changes) looked good except for one. The problem looks to be a bug, so I created this JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-4575
I'm not sure the best way to fix it, so I assigned it to you, if you could take a look. Thanks, Volodymyr On 2023/02/27 15:22:49 Volodymyr Siedlecki wrote: > Thank you for getting these tests ported! We'll test out the PR and hope to > have it merged soon :) > > On 2023/02/27 14:42:13 Werner Punz wrote: > > 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 > > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >
