Mailing-List: contact camel-dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ammulder@gmail.com designates
 66.249.90.180 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=WKobolyyS11RQqyapdruuUgcJUAS/9Zwh96DhqKEk9gyXQaKe0KHZZyGbnI4CR2CH6
         abipGXPH3/Ai30JoklFI4FSJYmS7uf7PgDAMhP1JWIa602SWx92ytkdP6NtzuPWsmV2d
         iWR3tFtUUKL1hxGPMYNXBu+1yveQtxMf1Ja/E=
Message-ID: <74e15baa0807030614n766fc983rb80ad0cbdf406423@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:14:51 -0400
From: "Aaron Mulder" <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
Sender: ammulder@gmail.com
To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: Failing Unit Tests
In-Reply-To: <486C924A.1040202@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <74e15baa0807021258p569c12bcha0f816e4a7b5ebef@mail.gmail.com>
	 <486C284D.5010703@gmail.com>
	 <74e15baa0807021829h4c260914o53515a23f33e8a0d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <486C924A.1040202@gmail.com>

Rock on!

Looks like the JavaScript one was a problem with my syntax?  I can't
say I understand it since my actual JavaScript code uses foo['bar'] to
access JavaScript hashes or whatever, but if foo('bar') is needed in
this case, OK.  Probably just speaks to my limited knowledge of
JavaScript. :)

So as I understand the Jython situation now, when writing a Jython
expression, you must always prefix it with "result = ".  I think
that's a workaround we could document and say it works.

Still, it would be nice in the future to find a different way to
invoke the Jython to make that "result = " part unnecessary.  Maybe
Dave and I can look into that.

Thanks,
       Aaron

P.S. The camel-script tests only work under Java 6 for me -- I guess
probably some of the script engine JARs were built with Java 6 because
I'm getting unsupported class version errors on Java 5 even when I
rebuilt all of Camel with Java 5?

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Willem Jiang <willem.jiang@gmail.com> wrote:
> Got all the tests in camel-script passed.
> Please add more unit tests so we can keep camel evolving ;)
>
> Willem
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>> I would prefer to see Bamboo fail at the end.  But as far as
>> commenting out tests goes, it seems to me the point of a unit test is
>> to show whether something works, and commenting-out every unit test
>> that fails really means the unit tests as a whole are pretty
>> worthless.  I would rather comment out Bamboo and let the unit tests
>> accurately reflect the state of the project.  :)
>>
>> As far as the scripting issues and 1.4/1.5, I don't have a big
>> personal interest in whether the issues get fixed, it just seems kind
>> of cheesy that the Web site talks all about these different scripting
>> languages and how they work great for this and that, but then you try
>> them, and they turn out to be totally broken.  Perhaps if we don't
>> plan to put fixes in, we should update the Web site pages for Jython
>> and JavaScript (and I haven't tried PHP and some of the others yet!)
>> to indicate that they don't actually work.  At least we won't be
>> misleading anyone that way.  (Of course, it may just be my scripting
>> syntax that's the problem, but I was hoping someone had worked with
>> those features and would know :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>       Aaron
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Willem Jiang <willem.jiang@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Since your are meeting with a known issue which filled in JIRA, so I
>>> comment
>>> out the unit test to let bamboo keep running.
>>> If you take a look at bamboo's building log , you will find that it will
>>> not
>>> build the remain modules if it get a test failure.
>>> Maybe we need change the bamboo's build scrip to let it use -fae ( fail
>>> at
>>> end) options.
>>>
>>> BTW, We are going to release Camel 1.4.0 this week, if we can't get your
>>> issue fixed on time , I'd like to comment it out for moving it into the
>>> 1.5.0.
>>>
>>> The JIRA for your issue could keep the unit test in our mind :)
>>>
>>> Willem
>>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So I've been wrangling with various scripting languages in Camel
>>>> expressions.
>>>>
>>>> I think I've determined that JavaScript and Python are broken, because
>>>> the expressions when invoked via JSR-223 always evaluate to null or
>>>> false.  It looks like that might be fixed by changing the way the
>>>> script is invoked.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, James asked me to put in unit tests to demonstrate the
>>>> problem, so I did.  Unfortunately, there are a number of unit tests in
>>>> the camel-script module that were previously failing and commented
>>>> out, for reasons that aren't clear to me (though I didn't really
>>>> investigate).
>>>>
>>>> The problem is, someone immediately commented out my new unit tests
>>>> too, because they caused the Bamboo build to fail.  And that's a
>>>> problem because now they're just in the mess of "failing unit tests
>>>> being ignored" instead of "failing tests demonstrating a problem that
>>>> needs to be fixed".
>>>>
>>>> So I guess I'd like to ask that the Bamboo maintainer not comment out
>>>> these tests, even though it will cause the build to fail if tests are
>>>> enabled.  If that's not acceptable, if all failing unit tests will
>>>> just be commented out, then it seems to me there's little reason to
>>>> *write* unit tests.  But I'm open to suggestions on this one.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>     Aaron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>