maybe you should be using
el.setStyle('webkit-transform', x), cause this will give you
el.style.webkitTranform = x;
with the '-' you might be getting an uppercased W.
i havent tested it but it should be the problem.
--
Fábio Miranda Costa
Solucione Sistemas
Engenheiro de interfaces
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:40 PM, pradador <[email protected]> wrote:
> My getRotation method simply gets the rotation value of the -webkit-
> transform | -moz-transform property in the same way that the
> Element.getOpacity method does. I've managed to get tests working by
> creating two separate elements with the required properties and
> running the assertions at the end, but it's still a bit confusing.
> What's throwing me off even more is that the problem goes away when I
> use the complement setRotation method to change the rotation the
> second time around.
>
> 'should return correct values': function() {
> el.setStyle('-webkit-transform', 'rotate(0deg)');
> value_of(el.getRotation()).should_be(0);
>
> el.setRotation(-90.1);
> value_of(el.getRotation()).should_be(-90.1);
> }
>
> Those assertions work just fine. It's only when I use the el.setStyle
> (); or the el.style[] methods that the test fails. Also of interest is
> what a couple of console.log calls show. If I change the test to this:
>
> 'should return correct values': function() {
> el.setStyle('-webkit-transform', 'rotate(0deg)');
> console.log(el, el.getRotation());
> value_of(el.getRotation()).should_be(0);
>
> el.setStyle('-webkit-transform', 'rotate(-90.1deg)');
> console.log(el, el.getRotation());
> value_of(el.getRotation()).should_be(-90.1);
> }
>
> The console shows this:
>
> <div style="-webkit-transform: rotate(0deg); "> 0
> Element.Transformations.js: 9
> <div style="-webkit-transform: rotate(0deg); "> 0
> Element.Transformations.js:13
> <div style="-webkit-transform: rotate(0deg); "> 0
> Element.Transformations.js: 9
>
> So it seems like the second el.setStyle() call isn't changing the
> rotation so it makes sense the should_be(-90.1) assertion fails.
> Thinking it might be a concurrency issue, I open up the console in the
> JSSpec page and view the el variable since it's a global variable. The
> output is this.
>
> > el
> <div style="-webkit-transform: rotate(0deg); ">
>
> And finally I try the setStyle method again to ensure that it actually
> works as follows:
>
> > el.setStyle('-webkit-transform', 'rotate(-90.1deg)');
> <div style="-webkit-transform: rotate(-90.1deg); ">
>
> Which leaves me stumped since the setStyle method seems to be working
> correctly outside of the tests. Yet inside it's not changing the
> element.
>
>
>
> On Nov 29, 3:44 pm, Aaron Newton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > doesn't the effect have a duration? if so, it's rotating it over a
> duration
> > while your assertion is happening immediately. You can't really test
> things
> > like Fx w/ Specs - anything that is asynchronous.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:55 PM, pradador <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I'm trying to learn how to use JSSpec and I'm having issues with this
> > > test. I can't figure out why on earth it fails and I thought maybe one
> > > of the MooTools people can share some insight. Here's the relevant
> > > code:
> >
> > >http://gist.github.com/244835
> >
> > > I can't understand why it says the test on line 9 states (should be:
> > > -90.1) when it really says should_be(0). If I add another "el = new
> > > Element('div')" in between the tests, the problem goes away. Any
> > > thoughts?
>
