The compliance gadget is wrong here, and I've brought this issue up with the authors on several occasions. There is no documented behavior for the test cases in question (and, like all things with undefined behavior, nobody should be writing code depending on something specific). We're not going to waste time writing unnecessary code to satisfy an invalid test case.
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don't suppose these are easy to fix on the javascript side? > > gadgets.io.* TestSuite: > > Description> Tests if we can get the proxy URL with given URL as proxy > [GIO101.0] gadgets.io.getProxyUrl(String) - With valid URL.: PASS: (got > 'proxy?refresh=3600&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2F~user') > [GIO101.1] gadgets.io.getProxyUrl(String) - With valid URL.: PASS: (got > 'proxy?refresh=3600&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2F~user') > [GIO102] [P2 ]:: gadgets.io.getProxyUrl() - With no parameters.: FAILED > [458 ms] > Description> Tests if we can call getProxyUrl API without any parameter and > it returns the proxy URL with empty proxy > [GIO102.0] gadgets.io.getProxyUrl() - With no parameters.: PASS: (got > 'proxy?refresh=3600&url=undefined') > [GIO102.1] gadgets.io.getProxyUrl() - With no parameters.: FAILED: (got > 'proxy?refresh=3600&url=undefined'), expected 'url=' > [GIO103] [P2 ]:: gadgets.io.getProxyUrl(null) - With null parameter.: > FAILED [462 ms] > Description> Tests if we can call getProxyUrl API with null as parameter > and it returns the proxy URL with empty proxy > [GIO103.0] gadgets.io.getProxyUrl(null) - With null parameter.: PASS: (got > 'proxy?refresh=3600&url=null') > [GIO103.1] gadgets.io.getProxyUrl(null) - With null parameter.: FAILED: > (got 'proxy?refresh=3600&url=null'), expected 'url=' > [GIO104] [P2 ]:: gadgets.io.getProxyUrl(undefined) - With undefined > parameter.: FAILED [466 ms] > Description> Tests if we can call getProxyUrl API with undefined as > parameter and it returns the proxy URL with empty proxy > [GIO104.0] gadgets.io.getProxyUrl(undefined) - With undefined parameter.: > PASS: (got 'proxy?refresh=3600&url=undefined') > [GIO104.1] gadgets.io.getProxyUrl(undefined) - With undefined parameter.: > FAILED: (got 'proxy?refresh=3600&url=undefined'), expected 'url=' > > I'm just a sucker for seeing green boxes is all :) > > -- Chris > > > On Aug 22, 2008, at 11:04 PM, Cassie wrote: > > I check the compliance tests regularly for the actual deployment of >> Shindig >> that I work on at work. We are failing more now only because the tests are >> getting much more thorough. (The tests are also very active so sometimes >> they have bugs too although it is usually our code that's wrong :) >> >> I haven't found many issues with Shindig's actual js layer though - its >> usually been in the server layer and most often in the service >> implementations that are container specific. >> >> The non-rpc based container definitely has some issues though because it >> sending requests to the server in a json map format... which doesn't >> preserve order. So, some of the compliance tests would fail simply because >> they were fetching app data before it was updated and so forth. >> >> So... hopefully someone out there can get a patch to switch the php to rpc >> batching going :) >> >> - Cassie >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Dan Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> By the way, the docs for the compliance test suite are at: >>> http://code.google.com/p/opensocial-resources/wiki/ComplianceTests >>> >>> -Dan >>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Louis Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Im seeing some similar issues. One thing I noticed is that lookingFor is >>>> now >>>> an Enum in JS but its not the Java datamodel. Im going to fix that one. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> When running the compliance test suite: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> http://opensocial-resources.googlecode.com/svn/tests/trunk/suites/0.7/compliance/reference/reference.xml >>> >>>> >>>>> I get 28 failed on my live version of partuza+php shindig ( >>>>> >>>> www.partuza.nl is >>>> >>>>> running a checkout that is about 1.5 weeks old), while the latest code >>>>> locally gives me 42 errors. >>>>> >>>>> To rule out that it wasn't the php code, i updated just shindig/php on >>>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>>> live server, and the error count didn't change, so it's probably some >>>>> shindig//features/* changes that cause this. >>>>> >>>>> Anyone checking if our JS code is 'compliant' ? And/or working on >>>>> >>>> fixing >>> >>>> it? Seems right now it's only getting less so :) >>>>> >>>>> -- Chris >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >
