On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Jan Stette wrote: > Absolutely, I see what you're saying. Part of the problem here may be that > on the project I'm working on, WicketTester is indeed used to do > integration/functional tests. I'm not sure why this was done in the first > place, but it does seem to work - most of the time! I guess the API that > WicketTester provides for performing actions like clicking links, submitting > forms etc. was convenient to drive from the system test harness, possibly > simpler than actually driving a "real" web front end. > > Anyway, if this really is an abuse of WicketTester that you have no > intention of supporting, then please say so!
Well, I don't know if it's so black and white, but the reality is that there are a lot of bugs and feature requests in Wicket compared to the development effort available, so prioritisation happens inevitably. In theory, it sounds like a good idea to support RequestCycle lifecycle methods, and it would make sense for WicketTester to mimic the real behaviour as close as possible, but in practice it might require some heavy debugging and coding that don't come out of nowhere :) And -- without meaning to put you off -- there's another important point to consider, which is the backwards compatibility of the changes. Making changes deep in 1.3 or 1.4 WicketTester code at the moment might produce unwanted effects in existing projects making heavy use of WicketTester and having worked around its quirks. This can happen even with legitimate bug fixes, and is sometimes necessary. But sometimes you just need to leave bugs in, because fixing them would break too much existing code. However, in Wicket 1.5 the backwards compatibility requirement can be relaxed somewhat, so in there you have more chances of getting that kind of fixes in. And meanwhile, if the root cause of the problem is found, it's possible that there are viable workarounds for 1.3 / 1.4 as well. If you can provide a good patch to help resolve your problem, the chances of getting it fixed increase dramatically ;) Though the backwards compatibility point above remains. > Still, there seems to be one case where this happens with just the basic > WicketTester functionality. First, creating a WicketTester: > > XWicketTester.createRequestCycle() line: 436 What is this line? Are you explicitly creating the RequestCycle? > Hope that makes sense at all... Sure, it is just a bit difficult to follow in this form :) Maybe you could create a working code example, such as a quickstart or even a JUnit test as a patch against the Wicket codebase? Then it would be easier to investigate further. Best wishes, Timo -- Timo Rantalaiho Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
