Re: Wrong JavaDoc for FeedbackMessages#hasMessage(int)
I've backported ExactLevelFeedbackMessageFilter from master branch. It has been introduced for: WICKET-4585 WicketTester.assertErrorMessages passes even if the message isn't visible on the page WICKET-5128 Allow for Testing Component relative Feedback-Messages in Wicket-Tester No need of new ticket. On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Paul Bors wrote: > Yes, we are using the .FeedbackMessages#hasMessage(IFeedbackMessageFilter) > as we had no other choice. > > I'll file a ticket with a pull request now that I got used to GitHub :) > > ~ Thank you, >Paul Bors > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Martin Grigorov >wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > You are right. > > But I think we can only improve the javadoc. > > You will have to > > use > > > org.apache.wicket.feedback.FeedbackMessages#hasMessage(org.apache.wicket.feedback.IFeedbackMessageFilter) > > with a filter that makes exact match. > > I have the feeling that we added such filter but I can only > > see org.apache.wicket.feedback.ErrorLevelFeedbackMessageFilter that has > the > > same behavior as #hasMessage(int). > > > > Please file a ticket and we will add it. > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Paul Bors wrote: > > > > > Currently (as of 6.10.0) the JavaDoc on > > > the FeedbackMessages#hasMessage(int) states that it returns true if and > > > only if a message with the specified level was registered. > > > > > > However it relies on FeedbackMessage#isLevel(int) which in turn return > > true > > > if whether the message level is greater than or equal to the given > level. > > > > > > Isn't that contradicting? I registered an Error message for my form > field > > > and I have a new behavior checking for Warnings that performs its > duties > > > because an Error message is at a lever greater than the Warning level. > > > > > > ~ Thank you, > > >Paul Bors > > > > > >
Thanks!
Hi *, I have to say, the more I work with wicket, the happier I become. A big "thank you!" to both the excellent developers and those helping others on the mailing list! Wicket is a truly amazing piece of kit. Having recently played with a number of other frameworks for real production apps, wicket continues to impress me. Even after using it for years in rather big projects. I love the whole "less magic is better"-attitude and configurability. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Kind regards, Bas Gooren
Re: Thanks!
thumbs up to that... On 06/12/13 23:49, Bas Gooren wrote: > Hi *, > > I have to say, the more I work with wicket, the happier I become. A > big "thank you!" to both the excellent developers and those helping > others on the mailing list! Wicket is a truly amazing piece of kit. > > Having recently played with a number of other frameworks for real > production apps, wicket continues to impress me. Even after using it > for years in rather big projects. > I love the whole "less magic is better"-attitude and configurability. > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Thanks!
Totally agree too!. After trying several Java web frameworks, finally selected Wicket. ~2 years later and I've ported a huge legacy swing client to a very nice web app. (in Scala too. but that's another story). Many thanks guys. Peter. On 6 December 2013 13:49, Bas Gooren wrote: > Hi *, > > I have to say, the more I work with wicket, the happier I become. A big > "thank you!" to both the excellent developers and those helping others on > the mailing list! Wicket is a truly amazing piece of kit. > > Having recently played with a number of other frameworks for real > production apps, wicket continues to impress me. Even after using it for > years in rather big projects. > I love the whole "less magic is better"-attitude and configurability. > > -- > > Met vriendelijke groet, > Kind regards, > > Bas Gooren > >
Re: Wrong JavaDoc for FeedbackMessages#hasMessage(int)
We should still edit the JavaDoc for FeedbackMessages#hasMessage(int) and instruct to use ExactLevelFeedbackMessageFilter. Otherwise might get confused if the don't review the implementation. ~ Thank you, Paul Bors On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > I've backported ExactLevelFeedbackMessageFilter from master branch. > > It has been introduced for: > WICKET-4585 WicketTester.assertErrorMessages passes even if the message > isn't visible on the page > WICKET-5128 Allow for Testing Component relative Feedback-Messages in > Wicket-Tester > > No need of new ticket. > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Paul Bors wrote: > > > Yes, we are using the > .FeedbackMessages#hasMessage(IFeedbackMessageFilter) > > as we had no other choice. > > > > I'll file a ticket with a pull request now that I got used to GitHub :) > > > > ~ Thank you, > >Paul Bors > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Martin Grigorov > >wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > You are right. > > > But I think we can only improve the javadoc. > > > You will have to > > > use > > > > > > org.apache.wicket.feedback.FeedbackMessages#hasMessage(org.apache.wicket.feedback.IFeedbackMessageFilter) > > > with a filter that makes exact match. > > > I have the feeling that we added such filter but I can only > > > see org.apache.wicket.feedback.ErrorLevelFeedbackMessageFilter that has > > the > > > same behavior as #hasMessage(int). > > > > > > Please file a ticket and we will add it. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Paul Bors wrote: > > > > > > > Currently (as of 6.10.0) the JavaDoc on > > > > the FeedbackMessages#hasMessage(int) states that it returns true if > and > > > > only if a message with the specified level was registered. > > > > > > > > However it relies on FeedbackMessage#isLevel(int) which in turn > return > > > true > > > > if whether the message level is greater than or equal to the given > > level. > > > > > > > > Isn't that contradicting? I registered an Error message for my form > > field > > > > and I have a new behavior checking for Warnings that performs its > > duties > > > > because an Error message is at a lever greater than the Warning > level. > > > > > > > > ~ Thank you, > > > >Paul Bors > > > > > > > > > >
