the project builds fine and all tests pass on our teamcity instance: wicketstuff.org/teamcity so it must be the patch you applied
-igor On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Wilhelmsen Tor Iver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I got this error during tests when trying to build latest source from > trunk: > > junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: expected:<304> but was:<200> > at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47) > at junit.framework.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:282) > at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:64) > at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:201) > at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:207) > at > org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WicketFilterTest.testNotModifiedResponse > IncludesExpiresHeader(WicketFilterTest.java:106) > > The only difference I have in my source tree is that I have applied the > "portlet 2.0 patch" so portlet-related classes differ... > > However, the real reason I did sync with trunk was to see if it resolved > an issue we have with SpringWebApplicationFactory complaining that the > context has more than one WebApplication defined; This is in a web > application acting as a portlet provider for two portlets, which have > their own Application classes because of the need to mount bookmarkable > pages for VIEW/EDIT and using different path selectors for the portlets. > The exception we get is: > > java.lang.IllegalStateException: more then one bean of type > [org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebApplication] found, must have only > one > at > org.apache.wicket.spring.SpringWebApplicationFactory.createApplication(S > pringWebApplicationFactory.java:112) > at > org.apache.wicket.spring.SpringWebApplicationFactory.createApplication(S > pringWebApplicationFactory.java:86) > at > org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WicketFilter.init(WicketFilter.java:578) > > ... though the Javadocs for SpringWebApplicationFactory says you can > have multiple Applications as ong as you use the beanName parameter, > which we do. > > Any suggestions? Can we bypass the mounting problem by having a URL > coding strategy which takes care of splitting out the "base path" and > pass to a delegate of some sort? > > - Tor Iver > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
