Re: Issues with layout engine test framework
On 23.11.2005 21:44:29 J.Pietschmann wrote: snip/ - The external-graphics_src_url testcase Suggestions? Should we just remove it? I've disabled it. People without restrictions could reenable the testcase for themselves. Alternatively, we could add FOP extensions allowing for proxy authentification. Given that this has come up a number of times in the past, that's not a bad idea. I'll add it to the Wiki. Jeremias Maerki
Re: Issues with layout engine test framework
Manuel Mall wrote: Personally I would prefer the other way around - people behind non transparent proxies can disable the testcase. The problem is that it appears the whole testsuite to hang, until the connection times out. We could probably exchange arguments ad infinitum. Maybe a solution is to create another category of tests, tests unsafe for people without internet connection or so. J.Pietschmann
Re: Issues with layout engine test framework
Jeremias Maerki wrote: Given that this has come up a number of times in the past, that's not a bad idea. I'll add it to the Wiki. Design idea: create an URL resolver which uses j-c-httpclient and is optionally built. This should resolve all other problems regarding HTTP URLs, including other authorization and session problems. J.Pietschmann
Re: Issues with layout engine test framework
Jeremias Maerki wrote: - There is no easy notification if a disabled test case really is a testcase... Well, we don't have to add safety checks for every little detail, do we? I wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't already been bitten by this. - The external-graphics_src_url testcase Suggestions? Should we just remove it? I've disabled it. People without restrictions could reenable the testcase for themselves. Alternatively, we could add FOP extensions allowing for proxy authentification. J.Pietschmann
Re: Issues with layout engine test framework
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 05:20 am, Simon Pepping wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:39:03PM +0100, J.Pietschmann wrote: snip/ BTW. Ant 1.6.1 complains: build.xml:808: The fail type doesn't support the nested condition element. Do we really need a bleeding edge ant? (although the Ant people could be a bit less aggressive with adding features in minor releases too). The else attribute of the condition element (line 1046) requires Ant 1.6.3. Well, I upgraded. Sorry that was me - no intention to be bleeding edge - just looked at the ant documentation to see how I could do what I wanted and that feature seemed appropriate. Must admit never occurred to me to check when it was introduced into ant. If someone knows how to achieve the same or similar outcome with an older version of ant - I would say just go for it and fix build.xml. Simon Manuel
Re: Issues with layout engine test framework
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:39:03PM +0100, J.Pietschmann wrote: Hi, a few thoughts about the layout engine test harness: - It won't run if CWD!=project.home, i.e. ant -find build.xml from a subdirectory fails the tests with a file not found exception. Neither the disabled testcase file nor any of the style sheets are found. This can be quite annoying with some IDEs. Indeed, it annoyed me yesterday evening. It would be good if we would reestablish independence of the current working directory by passing the base directory to the code. BTW. Ant 1.6.1 complains: build.xml:808: The fail type doesn't support the nested condition element. Do we really need a bleeding edge ant? (although the Ant people could be a bit less aggressive with adding features in minor releases too). The else attribute of the condition element (line 1046) requires Ant 1.6.3. Well, I upgraded. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
