Re: Trunk Builds

Shawn, Looks like my copy of dojo-release-1.1.1-mini.zip was outdated and files were wrapped in an extra "dojo" directory. Once I updated it the extra "dojo" directory disappeared. I updated the DOJO_BASE in ConfirmMessageTag.java. Thanks, Jarek On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Shawn Jiang wrote:

Re: Trunk Builds

Sorry, Are we using the same trunk build ? I downloaded the tomcat trunk build here: * http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20090703/geronimo-tomcat6-javaee5-2.2-SNAPSHOT-bin.zip * When accessing http://localhost:8080/*dojo/dojo/*dojo.js , I got it's content: /*

Re: Trunk Builds

Shawn, I recently modified ConfirmMessageTag.java so that it points to the right locations for dojo resources. It used to point to http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo/dojo.js (which does not work) but now points to http://localhost:8080/dojo/dojo/dojo/dojo.js (which does work). That made the confirmat

Re: Trunk Builds

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: > Shawn, > > The one failure in console/advanced on Tomcat is caused by fixing that > prompting issue in the console. I'm hoping it's just a timing issue It's not a timing issue. This is caused by a modification on ConfirmMessageTag.java recen

Re: Trunk Builds

On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:51 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Jul 1, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: David, I'm trying to make things work and behave the same for ejb-based web services as for servlet-based web services. I have a similar se

Re: Trunk Builds

Shawn, The one failure in console/advanced on Tomcat is caused by fixing that prompting issue in the console. I'm hoping it's just a timing issue since its takes a bit of time to load all the Dojo stuff for the first time. So I just increased the wait time for the window to show up in that test.

Re: Trunk Builds

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:51 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: > >> David, >> >> I'm trying to make things work and behave the same for ejb-based web >> services as for servlet-based web services. I have a similar security >> tests to jaxws-ejb-sec for servl

Re: Trunk Builds

If the test is wrong, tomcat run-as propagation logic must have bug because Tomcat testsuite with the same case passed. On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:53 AM, David Jencks wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote: > > I can't recreate the same console/advanced failure in my local machine

Re: Trunk Builds

On Jul 1, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Shawn Jiang wrote: I can't recreate the same console/advanced failure in my local machine. But I do find another console testsuite bug and filed a JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4720 (patch provided) The failure of enterprise-testsuite

Re: Trunk Builds

I can't recreate the same console/advanced failure in my local machine. But I do find another console testsuite bug and filed a JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-4720 (patch provided) The failure of enterprise-testsuite/sec-tests is related to "run-as" propagation from a serv

Re: Trunk Builds

On Jul 1, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: David, I'm trying to make things work and behave the same for ejb-based web services as for servlet-based web services. I have a similar security tests to jaxws-ejb-sec for servlet-based web services - see jaxws-war-sec. Take a look at /basicAllo

Re: Trunk Builds

David, I'm trying to make things work and behave the same for ejb-based web services as for servlet-based web services. I have a similar security tests to jaxws-ejb-sec for servlet-based web services - see jaxws-war-sec. Take a look at /basicAllowGet example in web.xml. It has one http-method spec

Re: Trunk Builds

On Jun 30, 2009, at 12:28 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Jun 30, 2009, at 7:35 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: David, Some errors on the console (or in the logs) are to be expected. The tests check if for example the service that requires security can be accessed without security. That should generate s

Re: Trunk Builds

On Jun 30, 2009, at 7:35 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote: David, Some errors on the console (or in the logs) are to be expected. The tests check if for example the service that requires security can be accessed without security. That should generate some errors and that's what the test expects. As us

Re: Trunk Builds

David, Some errors on the console (or in the logs) are to be expected. The tests check if for example the service that requires security can be accessed without security. That should generate some errors and that's what the test expects. As to securing ?wsdl access, a while ago I added a feature

Re: Trunk Builds

I've worked on GERONIMO-4645, however I'm getting strange results from running the testsuite. When I look at build.log for a test bit I don't see errors but the console output claims a lot of bits failed. So hopefully your automated tests won't have this problem and we can see how successf

Re: Trunk Builds

Based on running the testsuite yesterday and with fixes committed last night I *think* we should be passing all tests on Tomcat and fail enterprise-testsuite/sec-tests and webservices-testsuite/jaxws-tests on Jetty. The webservices-testsuite/jaxws-tests fails because of GERONIMO-4645. Not sure what

Trunk Builds

A search of emails shows that our last successful automated build of trunk was on May 26th. I know that there have been increasing frustration with these recent build issues. We seem to be closing in on getting these issues resolved. I built last night. I built successfully, last night, but

enterprise-testsuite/sec-tests failure (Re: Latest trunk builds are not the "latest".)

Been looking into this one and it appears that my first guess wasn't right. Seems to actually be some issue with the ejb linking code. For some reason the app client is trying to lookup a local view from the server. Investigating. -David On May 11, 2009, at 11:00 PM, David Blevins wrot

Re: Latest trunk builds are not the "latest".

Hmmm. I seem to recall mid April being the time that we realized we weren't getting updated openejb snapshots due to the nexus switch. I suspect it might some left over "must updated the clients to use the right JNDI name" due to the fix that Manu made a few months back that made it so th

Re: Latest trunk builds are not the "latest".

Yep. The 'latest' link is updated when all testsuite test pass. You can browse the results at: http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20090511/ (under logs-- directories). For example for enterprise-testsuite/sec-tests see http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/bi

Re: Latest trunk builds are not the "latest".

I strongly suspect that the testsuite has been failing since 15 april, thus preventing copying to the "latest" location. Personally I get more and different testsuite failures locally on my mac, but I haven't looked very hard into why. Can anyone supply info on the test failure that is occ

Latest trunk builds are not the "latest".

The trunk binary here was built on 15-Apr-2009 according to http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/latest/ While the latest binary here http://people.apache.org/builds/geronimo/server/binaries/trunk/20

Re: Trunk builds will fail now if missing legal files...

Thanks. --jason On Feb 28, 2007, at 5:37 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote: OK. Let me look at it. Cheers Prasad On 2/28/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've gone through the bulk of it... fixed some places where legal files were missing (using stnd LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt) and fixed

Re: Trunk builds will fail now if missing legal files...

OK. Let me look at it. Cheers Prasad On 2/28/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've gone through the bulk of it... fixed some places where legal files were missing (using stnd LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt) and fixed some bits where extra pom magic was needed. This is for the *normal* b

Re: Trunk builds will fail now if missing legal files...

I've gone through the bulk of it... fixed some places where legal files were missing (using stnd LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt) and fixed some bits where extra pom magic was needed. This is for the *normal* build... I imagine that the testsuite/* bits still need some help. Either add the lice

Trunk builds will fail now if missing legal files...

might be broken at the moment, running a clean build to verify... will fix if something is missing. But, keep in mind that if you add a new module, it needs to have legal files (just like on 1.2). --jason