Hey Colin, Thanks for the details. I will check them out tomorrow when I get in and write up and run some more tests to see if that may solve the problem.
John On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Colin Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
