Hi Kevin, 2008/12/16 Kevin Brown <[email protected]>:
[SNIP] > Out of the box, some are going to fail because they depend on the storage > mechanism (activities / app data) being writeable. If you want those to pass > you have to wire up persistence to a writeable store. The default stores are > read only. Thanks for the clarification. > Most of the warnings are bogus IMO -- the compliance tests attempt to define > error conditions that aren't in the spec. I've brought this up with the But tests (ie PPLX00.7) speaks about error code: FAILED: (got 'badRequest'), expected 'unauthorized' > compliance test maintainers on several occasions but they disagree on > interpretation of "not specified". If somebody wants to write patches to > make shindig "compliance gadget compliant" instead of "spec compliant", > though, I guess that's OK. So, which tests are purely gadget or spec compliant? Cheers, Vincent
