Thanks, Andrew. I'm still having problems with the FileTransfer mobile spec tests. Based on what I see in the fileTransfer.tests.js file, I set my whitelist to the following in config.xml:
<access origin="http://www.google.com"; /> <access origin="http://www.apache.org"; subdomains="false"/> <access origin="https://www.apache.org"; /> <access origin="http://cordova-filetransfer.jitsu.com"; /> <access origin="http://whatheaders.com"; /> The goole reference is for the inAppBrowser tests. With this whitelist I get two failures both relating to unknown host testing: File Transfer download method should handle unknown host - the uploadWin success method is being called when it should not be. This is trying to download from "http://foobar.apache.org/index.html";; which should be rejected because of the subdomains="false" in the apache.org white list settings. I also get File Transfer upload method should handle unknown host error as well with the same error that 'uploadWin' should not have been called. Interestingly the whitelist error is caught but is returned in the success callback as the response. Now, if I remove the change to fix CB-2235 ( https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cordova-ios.git;a=commit;h=db22768362823bf6f84cbaead6c03dd1764f60b2) all of the FileTransfer tests pass. FWIW if I leave the whitelist wide open, I still get the FileTransfer download method should handle unknown host error that uploadWin is getting called - which probably makes sense since the subdomain to apache is allowed. However, I do not get the upload method should handle unknown host error which I think I should get!! Thus, 1) either my whitelist is incorrect 2) the fix is incorrect 3) the tests are incorrect 4) I am totally lost! (reading jasmine tests is not one of my strong suits) I am not an http headers guru so it will take me awhile to fully grok the file transfer code to determine the problem. -becky On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]>wrote: > Okay, tagged JS, iOS, Android. > > https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6648754/cordova-2.4.0rc2/cordova-2.4.0rc2-src.zip > > https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6648754/cordova-2.4.0rc2/cordova-2.4.0rc2/cordova-js.zip > > https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6648754/cordova-2.4.0rc2/cordova-2.4.0rc2/cordova-ios.zip > > https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6648754/cordova-2.4.0rc2/cordova-2.4.0rc2/cordova-android.zip > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:35 PM, fabian boulegue <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Agree > > > > _____________________ > > Fabian Boulegue > > tea inc. > > CEO - Founder > > Meierbrede 9 > > 33100 Paderborn > > > > Mobile > > > > Am 29.01.2013 um 23:43 schrieb Shazron <[email protected]>: > > > > > Ah I get it now (Andrew's list of significant iOS commits) I suppose we > > > could internally tag an rc2 (not public release) and test the heck out > of > > > it. Those iOS changes are critical bug fixes since rc1. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Okay, that wasn't entirely clear... > > >> > > >> I think we'd get pretty far by just tagging & testing iOS & Android, > > since > > >> most of the changes since rc1 relate to those two platforms. Agree? > > >> > > >> Given that we don't test before cutting an rc1, I think we should > > generally > > >> expect that we'll need to do an rc2 before shipping a release. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Andrew: sounds great. > > >>> > > >>> I'll talk to Shaz about doing a thoruough review of those > > >>> commits/changes. Lets stay on course for 2.4 Monday. > > >>> > > >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnP5iDKwuwk > > >>> > > >>> (Hopefully with a better outcome.---^) > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected] > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> I can tag JS & iOS & Android @ rc2 today. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Becky Gibson < > [email protected] > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> would be nice if we could tag a cordova-js so we are all working > off > > >> the > > >>>>> same version > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:29 PM, fabian boulegue <[email protected] > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Even if its no change on official repo maybe we should test it in > a > > >>> small > > >>>>>> group...? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> _____________________ > > >>>>>> Fabian Boulegue > > >>>>>> tea inc. > > >>>>>> CEO - Founder > > >>>>>> Meierbrede 9 > > >>>>>> 33100 Paderborn > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Mobile > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Am 29.01.2013 um 20:27 schrieb Filip Maj <[email protected]>: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The reason we aimed for Monday is because we have various > > >>> committers in > > >>>>>>> transit atm and tagging is difficult today + tomorrow. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On 1/29/13 11:20 AM, "Steven Gill" <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Could we just tag iOS rc2 today and still aim to release 2.4.0 > on > > >>>>>> Monday? > > >>>>>>>> People interested in testing could just work off the source. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -Steve > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Andrew Grieve > > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Changes of note: > > >>>>>>>>> [CB-2235] Fixed file transfer whitelisting for iOS6. > > >>>>>>>>> [CB-2290] iOS: 'CDVJSON.h' file not found when adding a plugin > > >>>>>>>>> Fixed InAppBrowser becoming subject to the opener's whitelist > > >>>>>>>>> Fixed InAppBrowser not working on iOS5 > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Android, I don't see any changes since the tag that warrant > > >> an > > >>>>> rc2. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I'll defer to Andrew's opinion as he has been hands-on with > the > > >>> iOS > > >>>>>>>>> repo > > >>>>>>>>>> recently (at least more than I have). > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/13 10:52 AM, "fabian boulegue" <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Well If we could commit a r2 soon I could let it been tested > > >>> here, > > >>>>>>>>> about > > >>>>>>>>>>> the known issues. > > >>>>>>>>>>> So we would stay on time. > > >>>>>>>>>>> _____________________ > > >>>>>>>>>>> Fabian Boulegue > > >>>>>>>>>>> tea inc. > > >>>>>>>>>>> CEO - Founder > > >>>>>>>>>>> Meierbrede 9 > > >>>>>>>>>>> 33100 Paderborn > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Mobile > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Am 29.01.2013 um 19:45 schrieb Filip Maj <[email protected]>: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm uncertain and worried that we'd slip to mid-Feb before > > >>>>>>>>> releasing > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.4.0. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/13 10:38 AM, "Andrew Grieve" <[email protected]> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> There have been several fixes to iOS since rc1. I think > this > > >>>>> would > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> warrant > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> an rc2. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected] > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We will go straight from 2.4.0rc1 to 2.4.0, unless > > >>> contributors > > >>>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> committers think there are some unresolved issues left > over > > >>>>>>>>> from, or > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> new > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones introduced in, 2.4.0rc1 . > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/13 9:39 AM, "fabian boulegue" <[email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So any update on release for r2? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Jan 29, 2013 um 6:24 PM schrieb Giorgio Natili > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/13 8:11 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember: silence is assent! > > >> > > >
