I'd love to see this included directly in Prototype to allow for
Event.fire and Element#fire to trigger DOM events (and not only custom
This would imply researching on how to trigger keyboard events (I know
YUI has a working implementation, for example), and providing a simple
wrapper around events like blur, focus and submit.
Any thoughts or proposed implementation on this is welcomed.
On Feb 4, 7:51 am, Dr Nic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the existing Event.simulateMouse code is labelled experimental,
> then this code with its suite of tests must be an improvement worth
> patching in? Even if it retains its "experimental" label, it will be
> an enhancement/bug fix patch for existing code.
> Whilst the ticket is categorised "script.aculo.us", it could be
> repatch against the prototype versions of unittest.js and the patch
> resubmitted if it will be accepted.
> On Feb 4, 4:48 pm, Dr Nic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [posted by kangax in Nov 07 with no responses at the time]
> > Hello team,
> > I recently needed a cross-browser simulateMouse support for some of
> > our tests in Prototype UI and stumbled upon certain limitations in
> > current implementation. Event.simulateMouse is marked as "Firefox-only
> > and experimental". Turning it into a somewhat robust solution will
> > definitely benefit other modules' test suits (notable autocompleter
> > and IPE which rely on mouse events quite heavily).
> > Thomas mentioned that any patches and tests are very appreciated,
> > considering that as of now there are NO specific unit tests for this
> > wonderful method.
> > Here's a fresh patchhttp://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/10170andunit
> > testshttp://dev.rubyonrails.org/attachment/ticket/10170/simulatemouse_test...
> > (FF2+, IE6+, Opera 9+, Safari 3 all pass happily). Would be nice to
> > know about Safari 2 as well. The coverage is not as complete as I
> > would want it to be, but it's a good start and is better than nothing.
> > My question is:
> > What are the chances of applying it to the current version or would it
> > rather make sense to bake it into a 2.0?
> > best,
> > kangax
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at