Hi Nicolas,
No thank you, I just wait for the Freemarker vote to pass...
I have also created
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Release+24.xx+Roadmap
HTH
Jacques
Le 14/05/2024 à 17:20, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
Hello Jacques,
Do you need some help to move forward on this
Hello Jacques,
Do you need some help to move forward on this subject ?
Nicolas
Le 28/03/2024 à 10:05, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Hi,
Without negative answer this week, I'll set the 2.3.33 version on
trunk next week
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-12935
TIA (for your tests see
Thanks Jacques !
gil
On 28/03/24 10:05, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Without negative answer this week, I'll set the 2.3.33 version on trunk next
> week
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-12935
>
> TIA (for your tests see also the patch in OFBIZ-12934)
>
> Jacques
>
Hi,
Without negative answer this week, I'll set the 2.3.33 version on trunk next
week
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-12935
TIA (for your tests see also the patch in OFBIZ-12934)
Jacques
Hi Team,
I created this Jira in order to test next FreeMarker release.
Of course everyone is called to test
TIA
Jacques
Message transféré
Sujet : [jira] [Created] (OFBIZ-12934) Test next FreeMarker release
Date : Sat, 9 Mar 2024 16:18:00 + (UTC)
De :Jacques
Hi Carsten,
Inline...
Le 08/09/2020 à 12:46, Carsten Schinzer a écrit :
Hello Jacques,
Thanks for the pointer.
My issue is that I find the XML test cases not good enough as e.g. the
updateCustRequest service has special behaviors when cancelling or adding
stories to a custRequest which
Hello Jacques,
Thanks for the pointer.
My issue is that I find the XML test cases not good enough as e.g. the
updateCustRequest service has special behaviors when cancelling or adding
stories to a custRequest which are currently not covered by the test in XML.
Similar for the transitions
manipulations to be sticky and not reverted for
the subsequent test case run.
I am going to rework my cases to run as JUnit test cases in a Java class.
Warm regards
Carsten
Am 03.09.2020 um 13:13 schrieb Carsten Schinzer
:
Hi everyone,
Recently, I did find that test cases actually are much easier
NOT been successful, hence a strong indication that running the cases
in Groovy will make entity data manipulations to be sticky and not reverted for
the subsequent test case run.
I am going to rework my cases to run as JUnit test cases in a Java class.
Warm regards
Carsten
> Am 03.09.2020 um 13
Hi everyone,
Recently, I did find that test cases actually are much easier to write in
Groovy and hence I started doing that, but now I stumble across the fact that
some of the Groovy tests seem to find changes applied to entities from previous
tests. The behavior is the following:
- I load
hello james,
thank you very much to have enlightening my way.
i could, in the end open the productdetails.ftl
my best wishes,
alex
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 4:14 AM James Yong wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> After choosing the mentioned item and clicking 'Add to Order',
> you should be able to see the ftl
Hi Alex,
After choosing the mentioned item and clicking 'Add to Order',
you should be able to see the ftl included in the screen.
Can add some text in the ftl to identify it.
Don't think productdetail.ftl is used during finalize order.
Regards,
James
On 2020/08/23 16:52:01, Alex Bodnaru
hello james,
thank you for your response.
I'm entering an order,
but i see orderentry [common,cart] screens.xml, and didn't find (yet)
orderentrycatalogscreen.xml.
most shameful (but frequent) on my part, is that I don't see how to finalize
the order.
will i get, in the end, to
Hi Alex,
Please see my reply inline.
Regards,
James
On 2020/08/23 12:53:05, Alex Bodnaru wrote:
> hello friends,
> I'd like to test a change in
> application/order/template/entry/catalog/ProductDetail.ftl.
Go to "Order Entry" and proceed with the Sales Order.
Choose "
hello friends,
I'd like to test a change in
application/order/template/entry/catalog/ProductDetail.ftl.
where can i see this file in action?
same with configproductdetail.ftl
alex
t now"
>
> Thanks
>
> Le 27/04/2020 à 12:36, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
> > I meant, in the XML version we were sending note (Test note) and comments
> > (Test Comments) as well in serviceCtx, but in the converted version we
> are
> > not sending these fields.
>
I don't remember if it was intentional, I think I missed them and will add them
"right now"
Thanks
Le 27/04/2020 à 12:36, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
I meant, in the XML version we were sending note (Test note) and comments
(Test Comments) as well in serviceCtx, but in the converted
I meant, in the XML version we were sending note (Test note) and comments
(Test Comments) as well in serviceCtx, but in the converted version we are
not sending these fields.
Tests will pass for sure, as they are not mandatory to send.
--
Best Regards,
Suraj Khurana
Senior Technical Consultant
d: Convert testSendOrderChangeNotification to Groovy
(OFBIZ-11233)
Tests pass
Modified:
ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/applications/order/minilang/test/OrderTests.xml
ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/applications/order/src/main/groovy/org/apache/ofbiz/order/OrderTests.groovy
Modified:
ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/ap
> New Revision: 1867927
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1867927=rev
> Log:
> Improved: Convert testSendOrderChangeNotification to Groovy
> (OFBIZ-11233)
>
> Tests pass
>
> Modified:
>
> ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/applications/order/minilang/test/Orde
Hi,
We actually had 2 problems to solve:
1. 8 tests don't pass on trunk.
2. Backport, the merge "worked" but we (at least) miss in RequestHandler.java
the not backported WIP on REST with notably these missing methods:
* RequestHandler::resolveURI (OFBIZ-10438)
*
Hi James,
The backports in R18 and R17 went well but for RequestHandler.java
We will need to do the merge by hand. I'll begin and let you know
Later...
Jacques
Le 04/04/2020 à 19:19, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Hi James, All,
Done, the CSRF defense is in trunk and I'll backport it ASAP (it
Hi James, All,
Done, the CSRF defense is in trunk and I'll backport it ASAP (it has a CVE).
But I need to check that's all is OK before.
There are more things to do anyway...
Jacques
Le 04/04/2020 à 17:48, James Yong a écrit :
Hi Jacques,
Can look at JWT enhancement later.
+1 for commit.
Hi Jacques,
Can look at JWT enhancement later.
+1 for commit.
Regards,
James
On 2020/04/04 13:10:18, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> 1. I like the idea. Maybe we could create the class but let the
> implementation (with explanations) for those who really need it?
> 2. I did not
Hi James,
1. I like the idea. Maybe we could create the class but let the implementation
(with explanations) for those who really need it?
2. I did not mean there was a correlation between csrf-token check and auth
check. My main idea is to avoid hardcoded things like
if
Hi Jacques,
For 1, seems like a ICsrfDefenseStrategy class implementation issue. We can use
another Jira for the enhancement / discussion when this JIRA (OFBIZ-11306) is
completed.
For 2, csrf-token check is independent of auth check, and the current
implementation should work as it is. So
hers it may turn out that they are also needed for other
reasons. For them we need to test them one by one and in some case
need to set csrf-token to false, for instance in case of requests in an
anonymous flow. So finally, despite the remaining 195 cases, it should
not be too hard and to
t;. Because there
> are some obviously needed, like all those related to login or password
> change. For the others it may turn out that they are also needed for other
> reasons. For them we need to test them one by one and in some case
> need to set csrf-token to fa
y are also needed for other
reasons. For them we need to test them one by one and in some case need to
set csrf-token to false, for instance in case of requests in an
anonymous flow. So finally, despite the remaining 195 cases, it should not
be too hard and too long to decide on this.
Hi All,
Before I create a PR as a last opportunity to allow reviews and tests, I'd like
to ask 2 last questions:
1. should we not use a JWT rather than a (pseudo) random value for the CSRF
token, this for timeout reason? Don't get me wrong I'm sure that the
random values generated by
+1 with CSRF defense enabled in Demo
> Hi,
>
> I thought about that a bit more. I suggest to let the stable version (soon,
> R17) as is, ie with CSRF defense enabled. This way users, mostly
> interested in stable, would see the real situation.
>
> And to use the NoCsrfDefenseStrategy in
Le 20/03/2020 à 08:44, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
If we do so, I have a question. With NoCsrfDefenseStrategy we have the possibility to bypass the CSRF defense. It's convenient for development,
because else, in this mode, the CSRF defense is quite intrusive. *
I propose to use it also in demo
Michael,
OK, I can wait 5 days more :) So it will be more for the next weekend
Jacques
Le 20/03/2020 à 09:44, Michael Brohl a écrit :
Jacques,
you announced a month, please stay with that or even think about expaning the test period. This is not a trivial case and with the current global
Jacques,
you announced a month, please stay with that or even think about
expaning the test period. This is not a trivial case and with the
current global situation, a lot of people will have more urgent problems
to solve at the moment.
Thanks,
Michael
Am 20.03.20 um 08:44 schrieb
not in development mode. Please verify it's OK with you before we
apply the plan above.
Here I want to thank James for his good work again
Jacques
Le 15/03/2020 à 19:35, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Hi All,
If you are interested to test, manually or with the tool of you choice, you can
do so at https
Hi All,
If you are interested to test, manually or with the tool of you choice, you can
do so at https://168.63.29.103:8443/webtools.
This is thank to Ross Gardler and Microsoft for providing an Azure Ubuntu
18.04.4 LTS VM where I installed OFBiz trunk patched for CSRF.
Please break
eover, I'm a developer not a penetration tester. And, for misc.
reasons, I find quite painful to use those tools when it comes to CSRF,
even if
it's well explained in[3].
I did not either find an easy way to automatically test all URLs for CSRF
vulnerabilities. It seems to me that the most pow
l cases (see
> OFBIZ-11306 description), I did not find a way to penetrate using this
> method.
>
> Moreover, I'm a developer not a penetration tester. And, for misc.
> reasons, I find quite painful to use those tools when it comes to CSRF,
> even if
> it's well explained in
use those tools when it comes to CSRF, even if
it's well explained in[3].
I did not either find an easy way to automatically test all URLs for CSRF vulnerabilities. It seems to me that the most powerful tool is Qualys but so
far I have been unable to scan a localhost instance. I expect to work on
For those interested, it's maybe easier to test to simply apply the last
> patches (framework + plugins) at OFBIZ-11306
>
> Also if I see nothing happening, I'll do a reminder every week...
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 27/02/2020 à 17:28, Jacques Le Roux a éc
For those interested, it's maybe easier to test to simply apply the last
patches (framework + plugins) at OFBIZ-11306
Also if I see nothing happening, I'll do a reminder every week...
Thanks
Jacques
Le 27/02/2020 à 17:28, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Forgot to say that w/ or w/o test I'll
Forgot to say that w/ or w/o test I'll commit in 1 month...
Jacques
Le 27/02/2020 à 15:08, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Hi,
After working with James, who initiated the "POC for CSRF Token" effort, on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-11306
I have created OFBIZ-11425 to a
Hi,
After working with James, who initiated the "POC for CSRF Token" effort, on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-11306
I have created OFBIZ-11425 to ask for all possible help to review and test.
TIA
Jacques
>> actual 37776
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >> Le 02/02/2020 à 15:49, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
> >>> Thanks jacques, I will take care
> >>>
> >>> Nicolas
> >>>
> >>
ux a écrit :
Hi Pawan, Nicolas,
Pawan, we have a test issue reported by Buildbot for R17 and R18
branch with plugins
R17
https://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbizBranch17FrameworkPlugins
1st case:
https://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbizBranch17FrameworkPlugins/builds/440
failures:
https
/02/2020 à 15:49, Nicolas Malin a écrit :
Thanks jacques, I will take care
Nicolas
On 02/02/2020 11:41, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
About Javadoc and Infra
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-19807
Le 02/02/2020 à 11:23, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Hi Pawan, Nicolas,
Pawan, we have a tes
Nicolas,
Pawan, we have a test issue reported by Buildbot for R17 and R18
branch with plugins
R17
https://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbizBranch17FrameworkPlugins
1st case:
https://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbizBranch17FrameworkPlugins/builds/440
failures:
https://ci.apache.org/projects/
ux wrote:
>>>> About Javadoc and Infra
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-19807
>>>>
>>>> Le 02/02/2020 à 11:23, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>>> Hi Pawan, Nicolas,
>>>>>
>>>>>
;
>> Nicolas
>>
>> On 02/02/2020 11:41, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> About Javadoc and Infra
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-19807
>>>
>>> Le 02/02/2020 à 11:23, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>>>> Hi Pawan, Nicola
, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
About Javadoc and Infra
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-19807
Le 02/02/2020 à 11:23, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Hi Pawan, Nicolas,
Pawan, we have a test issue reported by Buildbot for R17 and R18
branch with plugins
R17
https://ci.apache.org/builders
Thanks jacques, I will take care
Nicolas
On 02/02/2020 11:41, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> About Javadoc and Infra
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-19807
>
> Le 02/02/2020 à 11:23, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
>> Hi Pawan, Nicolas,
>>
>> Pawan, we have
About Javadoc and Infra
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-19807
Le 02/02/2020 à 11:23, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Hi Pawan, Nicolas,
Pawan, we have a test issue reported by Buildbot for R17 and R18 branch with
plugins
R17
https://ci.apache.org/builders
Hi Pawan, Nicolas,
Pawan, we have a test issue reported by Buildbot for R17 and R18 branch with
plugins
R17
https://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbizBranch17FrameworkPlugins
1st case:
https://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbizBranch17FrameworkPlugins/builds/440
failures: https://ci.apache.org
I have now backported the same (or equivalent) fix to all the active
release branches.
Happy new failing test suite year! :-)
Jacopo
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:21 PM Mathieu Lirzin
wrote:
> Hello Jacopo,
>
> Thanks for taking care of that.
>
> Jacopo Cappellato writes:
>
&g
today.
>> >
>> > Jacopo
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 7:32 PM Mathieu Lirzin > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> On my system I am noticing that the integration tests are failing w
t;>
> >> On my system I am noticing that the integration tests are failing with
> >> the following error snippet:
> >>
> >> --8<---cut here---start->8---
> >> $ ./gradlew "ofbiz --test component=
following error snippet:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
$ ./gradlew "ofbiz --test component=accounting --test
suitename=accountingtests"
[...]
2020-01-02 19:15:11,829 |main |TestRunContainer
|I| -->
auto
ystem I am noticing that the integration tests are failing with
> the following error snippet:
>
> --8<---cut here---start----->8---
> $ ./gradlew "ofbiz --test component=accounting --test
> suitename=accountingtests"
> [...]
> 2020-01-02 19:
are failing with
the following error snippet:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
$ ./gradlew "ofbiz --test component=accounting --test suitename=accountingtests"
[...]
2020-01-02 19:15:11,829 |main |TestRunContainer |I|
--&g
Hello,
On my system I am noticing that the integration tests are failing with
the following error snippet:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
$ ./gradlew "ofbiz --test component=accounting --test suitename=accountingtests"
[...]
2020-01-02 19
89=rev
Log:
Improved: Unit test case for service - SendOrderBackorderNotification
(OFBIZ-8810)(OFBIZ-9647)(OFBIZ-9671)
While working on this I stumbled upon an issue related with
webSiteId="OrderEntry" well related by Ratnesh Upadhyay in OFBIZ-9647.
Unlike him I decided not to remove the w
Sure Jacques. You can definitely proceed with the available patches.
Not an issue at all. We all are part of this dynamic community where we
work together as a team. :)
Thanks a lot for asking and taking care of this.
--
Best Regards,
Suraj Khurana
Technical Consultant
HotWax Systems
On
If you don't mind Suraj,
I'll commit the available patches
Jacques
Le 03/10/2019 à 13:40, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
I agree Suraj,
Jacques
Le 03/10/2019 à 11:25, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
Hello Jacques/Mathieu,
I think we can use the same ticket with new patch, WDYT. (If it is not
closed)
17:21, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit :
jler...@apache.org writes:
Author: jleroux
Date: Wed Oct 2 14:46:00 2019
New Revision: 1867889
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1867889=rev
Log:
Improved: Unit test case for service - SendOrderBackorderNotification
(OFBIZ-8810)(OFBIZ-9647)(OFBIZ-9671)
While
I agree Suraj,
Jacques
Le 03/10/2019 à 11:25, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
Hello Jacques/Mathieu,
I think we can use the same ticket with new patch, WDYT. (If it is not
closed)
We have been following this pattern since last many commits under
OFBIZ-1463.
Currently, I think most of the Patch
://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1867889=rev
Log:
Improved: Unit test case for service - SendOrderBackorderNotification
(OFBIZ-8810)(OFBIZ-9647)(OFBIZ-9671)
While working on this I stumbled upon an issue related with
webSiteId="OrderEntry" well related by Ratnesh Upadhyay in OFBIZ-9647.
Unlike him
Hi Suraj,
Actually those assigned to Yogesh Naroliya have XML patches and needs cleaning.
After doing it for OFBIZ-8810 and OFBIZ-8811, I find quite easy to convert
those tests to Groovy, WIP...
Jacques
Le 03/10/2019 à 11:25, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
Hello Jacques/Mathieu,
I think we can
Hello Jacques,
Jacques Le Roux writes:
> Le 02/10/2019 à 17:21, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit :
>
>> jler...@apache.org writes:
>>
>>> Author: jleroux
>>> Date: Wed Oct 2 14:46:00 2019
>>> New Revision: 1867889
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apa
Hello Jacques/Mathieu,
I think we can use the same ticket with new patch, WDYT. (If it is not
closed)
We have been following this pattern since last many commits under
OFBIZ-1463.
Currently, I think most of the Patch Available tickets under OFBIZ-1463
have converted groovy patch. Only 2 tickets
Le 03/10/2019 à 09:34, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
But you are right and I'll open new Jiras for migrating them, knowing that we have a 1300+ others tests to migrate[1]! (ie here it's 1%+, and I
expect simple ones :))
Started with OFBIZ-11232
Jacques
Hi Mathieu,
Le 02/10/2019 à 17:21, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit :
Hello Jacques,
jler...@apache.org writes:
Author: jleroux
Date: Wed Oct 2 14:46:00 2019
New Revision: 1867889
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1867889=rev
Log:
Improved: Unit test case for service
Hello Jacques,
jler...@apache.org writes:
> Author: jleroux
> Date: Wed Oct 2 14:46:00 2019
> New Revision: 1867889
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1867889=rev
> Log:
> Improved: Unit test case for service - SendOrderBackorderNotification
> (OFBIZ-8810
Jacques Le Roux writes:
> Le 07/09/2019 à 18:25, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit :
>> Hello Jacques,
>>
>> jler...@apache.org writes:
>>
>>> Modified: ofbiz/site/dtds/services.xsd
>>> URL:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/site/dtds/services.xsd?rev=1866545=1866544=1866545=diff
>>>
Le 07/09/2019 à 18:25, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit :
Hello Jacques,
jler...@apache.org writes:
Modified: ofbiz/site/dtds/services.xsd
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/site/dtds/services.xsd?rev=1866545=1866544=1866545=diff
Hello Jacques,
jler...@apache.org writes:
> Modified: ofbiz/site/dtds/services.xsd
> URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/site/dtds/services.xsd?rev=1866545=1866544=1866545=diff
> ==
> ---
Copying over from the user list, seems to be wrong here...
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSSION] Committing Minilang test patches under
OFBIZ-1463
Datum: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 11:31:49 +0200
Von:Jacques Le Roux
Organisation: Les Arts Informatiques
An: u...@ofbiz.apache.org
Kopie (CC): Pierre
the following points:
> >>
> >> - Logs are unreadable! I mean understanding which test has failed is
> >>already an endeavour.
> >
> > Oh that! I never look at integration test logs, it's impossible indeed.
> > I simply look at the result of the t
Le 05/06/2019 à 09:24, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
To explain my hard feeling regarding OFBiz integration tests. I find
them really hard to understand/debug due to the following points:
- Logs are unreadable! I mean understanding which test has failed is
already an endeavour.
Oh that! I
ntegration tests we cannot afford to let
more “stuff to be cleaned up later” enter the codebase.
I see your point, you kinda expect people having created Minilang test patches
to convert them themselves. Not sure that will we work.
If I get empathic (something I easily do when reviewing) I can
Hello
Jacques Le Roux writes:
> Le 02/06/2019 à 15:50, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit :
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux writes:
>>
>>> We started a discussion in OFBIZ-1463 about committing or not the Minilang
>>> test patches.
>>>
>>> There are alrea
ael
Am 02.06.2019 um 12:56 schrieb Jacques Le Roux :
Hi All,
We started a discussion in OFBIZ-1463 about committing or not the Minilang test
patches.
There are already few mixed opinions there (Michael, Aditya, Suraj and I).
Before voting I'd like to know if we can come to a consensus.
P
écrit :
> >> -1 to introduce more minilang code to the codebase. New code should
> >> be provided in either Java or Groovy code.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 02.06.2019 um 12:56 schrieb Jacques Le
introduce more minilang code to the codebase. New code should
be provided in either Java or Groovy code.
Thanks,
Michael
Am 02.06.2019 um 12:56 schrieb Jacques Le Roux
:
Hi All,
We started a discussion in OFBIZ-1463 about committing or not the
Minilang test patches.
There are already
. New code should be provided
in either Java or Groovy code.
Thanks,
Michael
Am 02.06.2019 um 12:56 schrieb Jacques Le Roux :
Hi All,
We started a discussion in OFBIZ-1463 about committing or not the Minilang test
patches.
There are already few mixed opinions there (Michael, Aditya, Suraj
-1 to introduce more minilang code to the codebase. New code should be provided
in either Java or Groovy code.
Thanks,
Michael
> Am 02.06.2019 um 12:56 schrieb Jacques Le Roux :
>
> Hi All,
>
> We started a discussion in OFBIZ-1463 about committing or not the Minilang
Le 02/06/2019 à 15:50, Mathieu Lirzin a écrit :
Hello Jacques,
Jacques Le Roux writes:
We started a discussion in OFBIZ-1463 about committing or not the Minilang test
patches.
There are already few mixed opinions there (Michael, Aditya, Suraj and I).
Before voting I'd like to know if we
Hello Jacques,
Jacques Le Roux writes:
> We started a discussion in OFBIZ-1463 about committing or not the Minilang
> test patches.
>
> There are already few mixed opinions there (Michael, Aditya, Suraj and I).
>
> Before voting I'd like to know if we can come to a consensu
Hi All,
We started a discussion in OFBIZ-1463 about committing or not the Minilang test
patches.
There are already few mixed opinions there (Michael, Aditya, Suraj and I).
Before voting I'd like to know if we can come to a consensus.
Please read in OFBIZ-1463 and come back with your opinion
Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
Thanks Rishi,
It seems it's something else now.
I'll also have a look, hopefully today
Jacques
Le 14/05/2019 à 11:22, Rishi Solanki a écrit :
Below are the test cases failure list on running "cleanAll loadAll
testIntegration"
1)
Great news, it's resolved with r1859267
Le 14/05/2019 à 11:38, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Thanks Rishi,
It seems it's something else now.
I'll also have a look, hopefully today
Jacques
Le 14/05/2019 à 11:22, Rishi Solanki a écrit :
Below are the test cases failure list on running "cle
lly today
>
> Jacques
>
> Le 14/05/2019 à 11:22, Rishi Solanki a écrit :
> > Below are the test cases failure list on running "cleanAll loadAll
> > testIntegration"
> > 1) [JUNIT (failure)] -
> production-run-tests.testCreateProductionRunForOrder
> &g
Thanks Rishi,
It seems it's something else now.
I'll also have a look, hopefully today
Jacques
Le 14/05/2019 à 11:22, Rishi Solanki a écrit :
Below are the test cases failure list on running "cleanAll loadAll
testIntegration"
1) [JUNIT (failure)] - prod
Below are the test cases failure list on running "cleanAll loadAll
testIntegration"
1) [JUNIT (failure)] - production-run-tests.testCreateProductionRunForOrder
: Assertion failed: ( NOT empty[originalOrderItemShipGrpInvRes=null])
2) [JUNIT (failure)] -
invoice-pe
; Thanks in advance !!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Best Regards,
> > >>>> Suraj Khurana
> > >>>> Technical Consultant
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd*
> &g
tems Pvt. Ltd*
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:17 PM Jacques Le Roux <
> >>>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
ng to
Pierre
Thanks
Jacques
Le 27/04/2019 à 15:36, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Thanks Suraj,
Can't we avoid the duplicated data?
Jacques
Le 27/04/2019 à 15:17, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
Hello team,
I have checked and found that there is a data dependency of
workEffortId=9000 in the test case which
I mentioned answering to
Pierre
Thanks
Jacques
Le 27/04/2019 à 15:36, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Thanks Suraj,
Can't we avoid the duplicated data?
Jacques
Le 27/04/2019 à 15:17, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
Hello team,
I have checked and found that there is a data dependency of
workEffortId=9000 in t
04/2019 à 15:17, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
Hello team,
I have checked and found that there is a data dependency of
workEffortId=9000 in the test case which is available in
plugins/projectmgr
component.
This was the main reason testIntegration was failing without having
plugins
component. I wi
id the duplicated data?
>> >
>> > Jacques
>> >
>> > Le 27/04/2019 à 15:17, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
>> >> Hello team,
>> >>
>> >> I have checked and found that there is a data dependency of
>> >> workEffortId=9000 in th
t; > Jacques
> >
> > Le 27/04/2019 à 15:17, Suraj Khurana a écrit :
> >> Hello team,
> >>
> >> I have checked and found that there is a data dependency of
> >> workEffortId=9000 in the test case which is available in
> plugins/projectmgr
> >&
1 - 100 of 1125 matches
Mail list logo
