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
