Guys,
I see DPP made a bunch of commits last night. Something in there has
fundamentally broken the markup parser. Yesterday I deploy an
application to production and today I go to update a small bit of copy
that marketing want changed and i'm finding that my application is
broken
With
Tim, you can also pin to certain snapshot dates I believe (-SNAPSHOT versions
are actually -MMDDHHMMSS), if something in the future breaks you.
-Ross
On Feb 24, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Timothy Perrett wrote:
Guys,
I see DPP made a bunch of commits last night. Something in there has
Tim,
Sorry. I was chasing a use case where control characters can still make it
into the XML output. Turns out that the Scala compiler converts
b{expression}/b into an Atom, not into a Text() element. Because of
this, it was possible for control characters to sneak into output.
I went around
Thanks for the follow up David. Probably this highlights some issues with our
automated testing though... any ideas on how we could add something to the
build cycle to verify stuff like this? The parsers particularly probably could
do with some pretty rigours test cases as this is a classic
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.euwrote:
Thanks for the follow up David. Probably this highlights some issues with
our automated testing though... any ideas on how we could add something to
the build cycle to verify stuff like this? The parsers
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Timothy Perrett
timo...@getintheloop.eu wrote:
Thanks for the follow up David. Probably this highlights some issues with our
automated testing though... any ideas on how we could add something to the
build cycle to verify stuff like this? The parsers
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen je...@ingolfs.dk wrote:
This is no replacement for unit tests, but is more a lightweight
integration test that exercises a big part of the Lift stack
imho a high-level test is way more useful for determining if the
system is basically
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Raoul Duke rao...@gmail.com wrote:
imho a high-level test is way more useful for determining if the
system is basically working, because it is so end-to-end; no, it
doesn't tell you precisely what to fix like a unit test would, but the
On 24 February 2010 18:40, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.comwrote:
In the case of Heiko's issue, it's already been reported by a Japanese user
of Lift 280_port_refresh. The 2.8 libraries take an optional parameter for
character set and default to the platform character set. We need
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Raoul Duke rao...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Raoul Duke rao...@gmail.com wrote:
imho a high-level test is way more useful for determining if the
system is basically working, because it is so end-to-end; no, it
doesn't tell you
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:51 AM, David Pollak
feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote:
in other words: are there any 'professional' Test/QA (note those are
different roles!) people on the Lift team/list?
So, I don't think we need additional QA. I think the existing processes
work just fine.
Right - I just want to add to what David wrote below: To clarify, yes, I moaned
and bitched about this today because it was causing me immediate hassle and
heat from other people in my workplace. However, Lift on the whole is vastly
more stable than any codebase i've ever worked with
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Timothy Perrett
timo...@getintheloop.euwrote:
Right - I just want to add to what David wrote below: To clarify, yes, I
moaned and bitched
And rightfully so. You had every reason to complain about an instability
that I introduced because I didn't think
The mental image of you wearing a traffic cone on your head is a pleasing one
David :-D
Cheers, Tim
On 24 Feb 2010, at 20:20, David Pollak wrote:
and those that circumvent that process (including me) should wear the cone of
shame.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
[...]
But, this is the exception (both in terms of my behavior and in terms of the
results.) It is an event that indicates that our current process works and
those that circumvent that process (including me) should wear the cone of
shame.
Pictures??
:-)
/Jeppe
--
You received this
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Timothy Perrett
timo...@getintheloop.euwrote:
The mental image of you wearing a traffic cone on your head is a pleasing
one David :-D
http://twitter.com/dpp/status/9591471689
Cheers, Tim
On 24 Feb 2010, at 20:20, David Pollak wrote:
and those that
Wow, that is amazing. Now we know what the cone of (process) shame looks like!
-Ross
On Feb 24, 2010, at 3:36 PM, David Pollak wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Timothy Perrett timo...@getintheloop.eu
wrote:
The mental image of you wearing a traffic cone on your head is a
Ross, if the coding doesn't work out for you, turn to marketing... The cone of
process: that my friend, is genius. Thou who broke master must where thy cone
on ye head until master be corrected!
Cheers, Tim
On 24 Feb 2010, at 22:32, Ross Mellgren wrote:
Wow, that is amazing. Now we know what
18 matches
Mail list logo
