Thank you for getting these tests ported! We'll test out the PR and hope to have it merged soon :)
On 2023/02/27 14:42:13 Werner Punz wrote: > I just have issued the pull request, and sorry, that I could not wrap > everything up on Friday. > > However I noticed that 3 TCK tests in the 2.3 area fail > commandScript tests fail.. also on the old codebase so not ajax related! > > The exactMapping test fails, because myfaces delivers a slightly different > pattern and uses xhtml as extension after the navigation > > Also I could not yet test the CDI test on my test setup, however the tests > pass on the raw TCK with Mojarra, so the tests are correct. > Either way, the pull request is out! > https://github.com/jakartaee/faces/pull/1795 > > > Werner > > > > Am Mo., 27. Feb. 2023 um 08:24 Uhr schrieb Werner Punz < > werner.p...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi sorry, did not make it... > > I will target today. > > > > Werner > > > > > > Am Do., 23. Feb. 2023 um 21:15 Uhr schrieb Paul Nicolucci < > > pnicolu...@gmail.com>: > > > >> Hi Werner, > >> > >> I just wanted to check in and see if you were still on target for the end > >> of the week for the changes you're working on. > >> > >> Vlad will have a PR up for the tests that were failing in the old tck > >> tomorrow sometime which will include selenium updates for: > >> 1) jsf/spec/view/protectedview > >> 2) jsf/spec/ajax > >> 3) jsf/spec/render/commandlink > >> > >> If you can use some help please let us know. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Paul Nicolucci > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 10:03 PM Volodymyr Siedlecki <volos...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Thank you as always. Let me know if I can help port over any tests, so > >>> we can split the work. > >>> > >>> Volodymyr > >>> > >>> On 2023/02/21 15:31:30 Werner Punz wrote: > >>> > Yes... I will work on them, I just converted the first one. > >>> > This is indeed the usual Rhino Problem. > >>> > I tackled for the Ajax parts of the TCK! > >>> > > >>> > Expect the fixed scripts to hit the TCK this week, I will simply will > >>> fix > >>> > it in the evening. > >>> > Vacation or not! > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Werner > >>> > > >>> > Am Di., 21. Feb. 2023 um 16:25 Uhr schrieb Thomas Andraschko < > >>> > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>: > >>> > > >>> > > it would be really great if we just fix the new failing tests, this > >>> are > >>> > > only ~10 test classes. > >>> > > the new scripts are really a great benefit for the future > >>> > > > >>> > > Am Di., 21. Feb. 2023 um 16:10 Uhr schrieb Werner Punz < > >>> > > werner.p...@gmail.com>: > >>> > > > >>> > >> Sorry I missed this thread. > >>> > >> I will work on the list. Problem is I am not working until next > >>> monday. > >>> > >> But I will see what I can do in my sparetime. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Thing is, this entire Rhino situation makes me somewhat uneasy if > >>> there > >>> > >> is a huge time pressure. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> We probably should postpone the big switch to a 4.1 release and go > >>> with > >>> > >> the old code. (Not that I do not have confidence in the new one, i > >>> > >> personally think it is better than the old code and less buggy, but > >>> losing > >>> > >> test coverage is a no go) > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Am Mo., 20. Feb. 2023 um 20:58 Uhr schrieb Volodymyr Siedlecki < > >>> > >> volos...@apache.org>: > >>> > >> > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The old-tck completed, and the results are better than expected. > >>> The > >>> > >>> only failures were found here: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> jsf/spec/ajax > >>> > >>> - 5 / 5 Fail (1 is excluded entirely) > >>> > >>> jsf/spec/render/commandlink > >>> > >>> - 3 /3 Fail > >>> > >>> jsf/spec/resource/packaging/classpath > >>> > >>> - 4 / 8 Fail > >>> > >>> jsf/spec/view/protectedview > >>> > >>> - 1 / 2 Fail > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 23 from the new TCK and 13 from the old TCK bring us to 36. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The new TCK failures could be fixed via selenium updates as > >>> before. As > >>> > >>> for the old TCK, it would be best to move the whole application > >>> and run it > >>> > >>> on a selenium driver. The tests run from within a servlet, so all > >>> we would > >>> > >>> then need to do is look at the response (ie. check for"Test > >>> PASSED" ) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I can start looking at the old tck (though it might be more > >>> complicated > >>> > >>> than what's suggested above). Werner (or anyone else), could you > >>> work on > >>> > >>> the new TCK with the list of tests sent in an earlier email? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Volodymyr > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2023/02/20 17:13:18 Paul Nicolucci wrote: > >>> > >>> > I did send a quick update to the Faces community: > >>> > >>> > https://www.eclipse.org/lists/faces-dev/msg00272.html > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > Regards, > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > Paul Nicolucci > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:50 AM Paul Nicolucci < > >>> pnicolu...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > Hi, > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > If we're not reverting this, then @Werner can you let the Faces > >>> > >>> community > >>> > >>> > > know that you have more changes coming in? I sent a message > >>> hoping > >>> > >>> we could > >>> > >>> > > get a new TCK out: > >>> > >>> https://www.eclipse.org/lists/faces-dev/msg00264.html > >>> > >>> > > last week. > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > I hate holding up a MyFaces 4.0.0 release when we were passing > >>> the > >>> > >>> TCK > >>> > >>> > > without these changes. I think if this can't be resolved > >>> quickly and > >>> > >>> with > >>> > >>> > > priority, we should really consider reverting. > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > Vlad and I are working with our testing team to try and get a > >>> full > >>> > >>> list of > >>> > >>> > > failures that need to be fixed. > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > Regards, > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > Paul Nicolucci > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:34 AM Thomas Andraschko < > >>> > >>> > > andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > >> IMO the goal should be to NOT revert this changes > >>> > >>> > >> > >>> > >>> > >> @Werner Could you fix/refactor the tests maybe? I really dont > >>> like > >>> > >>> to > >>> > >>> > >> revert because TCK uses a technology which doesnt support > >>> long time > >>> > >>> > >> existing JS/HTML features.... > >>> > >>> > >> > >>> > >>> > >> Am Mo., 20. Feb. 2023 um 17:16 Uhr schrieb Volodymyr > >>> Siedlecki < > >>> > >>> > >> volos...@apache.org>: > >>> > >>> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I regret bringing this topic up, but the new JavaScript code > >>> in > >>> > >>> RC5 is encountering more HTMLUnit trouble. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I've pulled the RC5 jars into our application server and run > >>> our > >>> > >>> test suite against it, and we saw about 5-10% of tests fail. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We have yet to run against the full TCK, but initial runs > >>> also > >>> > >>> show failures and errors (see list 1). The majority of the > >>> failures/errors > >>> > >>> are caused by either "missing formal parameter" or "syntax error". > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> This issue can be traced back to Rhino not supporting "rest > >>> > >>> parameters" (Found https://github.com/mozilla/rhino/issues/652 via > >>> > >>> https://github.com/HtmlUnit/htmlunit/issues/232 ). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> [ERROR] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee6.viewParamNullValueAjax.Issue4550IT.testViewParamNullValueAjax > >>> > >>> > >>> Time elapsed: 2.33 s <<< ERROR! ======= EXCEPTION START > >>> ======== > >>> > >>> Exception > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> class=[net.sourceforge.htmlunit.corejs.javascript.EvaluatorException] > >>> > >>> > >>> com.gargoylesoftware.htmlunit.ScriptException: missing formal > >>> > >>> parameter ( > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> http://localhost:9080/viewParamNullValueAjax/faces/jakarta.faces.resource/faces.js?ln=jakarta.faces#2 > >>> > >>> ) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Back to the topic of the TCK, the ajax tests (faces22/ajax, > >>> > >>> faces23/ajax, etc) were ported over to use the selenium driver, > >>> but other > >>> > >>> tests, which also use ajax, were not ported (faces23/exactmapping, > >>> > >>> faces40/inputfile, etc). > >>> > >>> > >>> Another portion of the TCK that has yet to be tested is the > >>> > >>> old-tck (which has thousands of tests, some of which will be hit > >>> by these > >>> > >>> script exceptions). *We'd be losing testing coverage with the new > >>> scripts.* > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If we remove the rest parameters, then our problems might be > >>> > >>> resolved. It's not a guarantee and I'm not sure how feasible it > >>> would be. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Unfortunately, though, a revert is the best course of action > >>> as I > >>> > >>> don't think challenging all of these previously working tests is a > >>> sound > >>> > >>> approach. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> My hope is to have a 4.0.0 release with the previous > >>> scripts. This > >>> > >>> would then give us time to automate MyFaces to run against the TCK > >>> and also > >>> > >>> move away from HTMLUnit. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The new scripts could then be merged at a later time (with > >>> more > >>> > >>> confidence). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1) List of New TCK Failures: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee6.viewParamNullValueAjax.Issue4550IT.testViewParamNullValueAjax > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee8.cdi.Spec1351IT.testInjectValidator > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee8.cdi.Spec1386IT.testInjectFlowMap > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee8.commandScript.Spec613IT.test > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.exactmapping.Spec1260IT.testLinkToNonExactMappedView > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.exactmapping.Spec1260IT.testAjaxFromExactMappedView > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.exactmapping.Spec1260IT.testExactMappedViewLoads > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.exactmapping.Spec1260IT.testPostBackOnLinkedNonExactMappedView > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.exactmapping.Spec1260IT.testPostBackToExactMappedView > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.exactmapping.Spec1260IT.testResourceReferenceFromExactMappedView > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.facelets.Issue4830IT.testUIRepeatResetValues > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet40.facelets.Issue5078IT.testUIRepeatVisitTreeDuringInvokeApplication > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee8.searchExpression.Issue4331IT.test > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee8.searchExpression.Spec1238IT.test > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.javaee8.uiinput.Issue5081IT.testIssue4734 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet50.inputfile.Spec1555IT.testMultipleSelectionNonAjax > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet50.inputfile.Spec1555IT.testSingleSelectionNonAjax > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet50.inputfile.Spec1555IT.testMultipleSelectionAjax > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ee.jakarta.tck.faces.test.servlet50.inputfile.Spec1555IT.testSingleSelectionAjax > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Volodymyr > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >>> > > >>> > >> >
