So, with the latest patches to the trunk (see ChangeLog and commits) I got Selenium working but finally ended up with firefox talking to Jetty telling me :
HTTP ERROR: 404 /selenium-server/tests/TestSuite.html Not Found RequestURI=/selenium-server/tests/TestSuite.html Since this is a version 3 firefox, and wasn't sure if this Selenium works with firefox 3, I stopped for now (I also could not get ff2 working anymore). According to http://jira.openqa.org/browse/SIDE-171 it should work, I'll do some more testing on this when I get some more time. regards, Harry 2009/3/26 Andrew Jaquith <[email protected]> > That would be great! Please take a look at it, if you wouldn't mind. > > I don't actually know why it doesn't work. Part of the problem is that we > don't wrap Throwables in WikiExceptions, so there is no way to know why > WikiEngine won't start unless you bust out the debugger. > > Jetty is tied to Selenium -- we are using the embedded 5.1 classes included > inside the Selemium server jar. Then I added the "plus" jar and a few > others. > > Both 2.8.1 and the trunk are affected. > > Any insights you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks. > > Andrew > > > On Mar 26, 2009, at 9:18, Siegfried Goeschl <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Andrew, >> >> a few notes along the line >> >> +) I recently wrote a plain vanilla Jetty integration (see >> http://turbine.apache.org/fulcrum/fulcrum-jetty/index.html) >> +) based on Fulcrum I'm also able to run Jetty within a JUnit test case >> (for webservice tests) >> >> So I think fixing the TestContainer is possible >> >> +) what is the actual problem with Jetty >> +) is Selenium tied to Jetty 5 in any way >> +) which JSPWiki version is affected 2.8.1 or trunk? >> >> If you don't mind I have a quick look at it ... >> >> BTW >> >> Andrew Jaquith wrote: >> >>> Sorry, I should have been a little more clear. The problem isn't with >>> Jetty per se. The problem is with TestContainer... the embedded Jetty >>> launcher class I wrote. It just doesn't work, and I can't figure out >>> how to fix it. When I first wrote TestContainer, I spent only enough >>> time writing it to make it work minimally. Then something broke it. I >>> do not have the time or energy to fix it. >>> >>> Remember how we got to this point: we use Jetty for the webtests >>> because parts of Jetty are included in the Selenium-RC jar. There's >>> enough of Jetty there that it can set up a little server for proxying >>> requests to Selenium-RC server. At the time, my reasoning was, "well >>> we've already got part of Jetty already included with Selenium. How >>> hard could it be to add in a few other JARs and write enough code to >>> get it to run as an embedded web container? All we we need to do is >>> write a launcher that configures support for executing JSPs, >>> authentication, and JNDI objects. How hard could THAT be?" >>> >>> It turns out, pretty hard. TestContainer has to wire all that "other" >>> stuff up programmatically -- precisely because we don't want or need >>> to include the entire Jetty stack in the JSPWiki distro. It wasn't >>> simple to write because there's very little documentation. Even worse, >>> we had to use Jetty 5.1 because that's what Selenium uses. But Jetty >>> is now at version 7, meaning the one we use in our test harness is >>> damned ancient. >>> >>> By contrast, Winstone is much, much simpler. It doesn't need any other >>> jars other than the JSP compiler & runtime, which we already ship. And >>> it executes from the command line with just a few switches. For our >>> purposes, it means we don't need to be writing custom code for >>> embedding Jetty to run web tests. This is a good thing -- it's just >>> one less peripheral thing that can break, and it mean we don't have to >>> be chained to an ancient web container for testing. >>> >>> As for commons-logging, we "shouldn't" need to run it, I agree. At the >>> moment the only way Winstone will run is if we include it. But perhaps >>> someone who's more expert at logging can help me with this. >>> >>> Again -- to be clear. Jetty isn't the problem. It's with our >>> TestContainer embedded servlet container launcher. >>> >>> Andrew. >>> >>> On 3/26/09, Janne Jalkanen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, I'm wondering about that too. If we can't run on Jetty, isn't >>>> that a really big problem for our general servlet compatibility? >>>> >>>> We should not need commons-logging.jar. SLF4J should be able to take >>>> care of it (since it contains commons-logging emulation). >>>> >>>> There are some limitations to including CDDL-licensed works, and >>>> without looking at Winstone it's hard to say whether they apply or >>>> not. http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html >>>> >>>> /Janne >>>> >>>> On 26 Mar 2009, at 08:14, Harry Metske wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew, >>>>> >>>>> just for my understanding, what is wrong with Jetty that makes our >>>>> webunit >>>>> tests fail ? >>>>> >>>>> (and I agree that CDDL License should be ok, since we have more of >>>>> them >>>>> already) >>>>> Harry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2009/3/26 Andrew Jaquith <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Janne and all -- >>>>>> >>>>>> The web unit tests are bothering me again. Specifically, the fact >>>>>> that >>>>>> we can't run them means we aren't getting good visibility to problems >>>>>> like the container login issue mentioned on the -user list. So I want >>>>>> to fix them. Again. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've gotten fed up with the bother of fixing the particular part of >>>>>> our web unit tests that are broken -- the embedded Jetty container >>>>>> that starts the test webapps. Fortunately I found an alternative >>>>>> webapp container, Winstone, that does exactly what we need. It's >>>>>> simple to run (can be done at the command line), and best of all it's >>>>>> TINY. Total additional size is 320k, plus the commons-logging-api jar >>>>>> (52k), which for some reason it needs. On the other side, I *think* >>>>>> we >>>>>> could get rid of the jetty-* jars in test (240k in total), which >>>>>> means >>>>>> the net addition is about 80k. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this is worth doing. I'd like to back-port this to 2.8 so we >>>>>> can fix the tests there, too. The best part is that this should >>>>>> actually work, in the sense that it means we don't have to worry >>>>>> about >>>>>> maintaining TestContainer, which was only meant to be good enough to >>>>>> barely function. And at the moment it doesn't. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only question is, is the CDDL ok? It looks like it probably is, >>>>>> since we have a license notice for it in docs already. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andrew >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>
