Agreed, the first passes.
Although, the subscribe for 'Hub subscriber interface MUST ignore verify
keywords it does not understand' includes ['sync','foobar','async']. I
only receive one param in the rack request and locally I'm getting
'foobar' -- hence the resultant "Invalid values for hub.verify: foobar"
or 400 response code.
Mike
Jeff Lindsay wrote:
The only thing specific to App Engine is a check to see if it is a local
dev environment for the reference hub, in which case it triggers the
task queue so it finishes its cycle needed for it to pass the test.
I'm not sure how you see that or the need for a multivalue hack based on
the failed tests you shared.
The first is the result of your hub not fetching published content after
being pinged, and the second is just saying you shouldn't allow a
catch-all for verify values. I'm not terribly sure why that's in the
spec as a MUST, but it is.
-jeff
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:45 AM, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Cool, looks like most of the tests pass (failed below). For the first
I would also need to include a multivalue hack...and the second seems
to require Google app engine.
I'll take a look/maybe implement the 'Not Yet Implemented' tests.
I've also considered moving the queue to sqs and model objects to s3
-- or similar (basically Gnip's original architecture). If anyone is
interested in lending a hand let me know.
1)
'Hub publisher interface sends an HTTP GET request to the topic URL to
fetch content' FAILED
expected: "GET",
got: nil (using ==)
./hub_spec.rb:59:
2)
'Hub subscriber interface MUST ignore verify keywords it does not
understand' FAILED
expected #<Net::HTTPBadRequest 400 Bad Request readbody=true> to be a
kind of Net::HTTPSuccess
./hub_spec.rb:91:
On Jan 18, 2:48 am, Jeff Lindsay <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Also! Please use (and update if necessary) the hub testsuite we
made:http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/source/browse/trunk/testsuite/R...
>
> Luckily for you, it happens to be written in Ruby!
>
> -jeff
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Brett Slatkin
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:48 PM, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> > wrote:
> > > Is there any interest out there for a full Ruby
implementation? It's
> > > pretty much a straight port using Sinatra and Redis including
a basic
> > > task queue. I'm currently testing the hub on AWS and hoping
to open
> > > source the code on GitHub. (I've also ported most of the
python tests)
>
> > That'd be awesome!
>
> --
> Jeff Lindsayhttp://webhooks.org-- Make the web more
programmablehttp://shdh.org-- A party for hackers and
thinkershttp://tigdb.com-- Discover indie gameshttp://progrium.com--
More interesting things
--
Jeff Lindsay
http://webhooks.org -- Make the web more programmable
http://shdh.org -- A party for hackers and thinkers
http://tigdb.com -- Discover indie games
http://progrium.com -- More interesting things
