Hi John,
Thanks for the detective work. There's a function in DataBinding.js,
fluid.value(), which advertises itself as a "generalization" of jQuery.val().
Does it pass your tests? And if so, do you think fluid.value() is a suitable
replacement for jQuery.val() in the places where we're currently seeing
regressions?
If so, maybe can promote it to the core Fluid.js file and just never use
jQuery.val() again.
Too bad jQuery broke the contract on val() and filed it "won't fix." :(
Colin
On 2011-03-21, at 5:27 PM, John Kremer wrote:
> Just wrote a few jQuery 1.5.1 tests for .val():
>
> var test_value = "abc";
> jqUnit.assertEquals("Testing textbox value", test_value,
> $("#textbox-with-value").val());
> jqUnit.assertEquals("Testing textbox value", test_value,
> $("#textbox-with-value").val(undefined));
> jqUnit.assertEquals("Testing textbox value", test_value,
> $("#textbox-with-value").val(""));
> });
>
> The only passing test is the top one, and passing a falsy returns the jQuery
> object as oppose to the value of the object.
>
> There are many tests that are failing in the migration over to 1.5.1 due to
> this issue.
>
> https://github.com/jkkremer/infusion/tree/FLUID-4113
> https://github.com/jkkremer/infusion/commit/39a684870854dfe205f8a6589b2c1526aba47697
---
Colin Clark
Technical Lead, Fluid Project
http://fluidproject.org
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
