tapestry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mindbridge" <mindbridge...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: TestPropertySpecification.xml is also failing (with JDK 1.3)
Date Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:53:39 GMT
This is interesting, since the unit tests work (sans the one that was
modified) work for me ok with JDK 1.3.1 :)

That said, I think your point is quite correct -- the aim of the test does
appear to be testing for (2) rather than (1). Perhaps it does need to be
modified?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Lewis-Shell" <rlewisshell@mac.com>
To: <tapestry-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 11:48 AM
Subject: TestPropertySpecification.xml is also failing (with JDK 1.3)


> OK - the other failing test is c9.Eight.  For my poor old antiquated JDK
it
> gives the following
>
> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Request #12/Message: Response does
not
> contain string 'Method 'public abstract long
> org.apache.tapestry.junit.mock.c9.Eight.getEnhancedProperty()' (declared
in
> class org.apache.tapestry.junit.mock.c9.Eight) has no implementation in
> class org.apache.tapestry.junit.mock.c9.Eight (or enhanced subclass
> org.apache.tapestry.junit.mock.c9.Eight$'.
>  at
>
org.apache.tapestry.junit.mock.MockTester.matchSubstring(MockTester.java:659
> )
>  at
>
org.apache.tapestry.junit.mock.MockTester.executeOutputAssertions(MockTester
> .java:558)
> ...
>
> The test script is expecting an exception for the getter, but under JDK
1.3
> Tapestry is actually failing with the setter.  Seems the test has two
> problems:
> 1) the name of the property does not match the name of the getter/setter
> ("enhancedProperty" vs "enhanced")
> 2) the setter returns long instead of void.
>
> I think the first is a mistake - though please correct me if I'm wrong.
The
> second appears to be the error that is actually being tested for (based on
> the comment accompanying the setter in Eight.java).  Actually, it could be
> both are deliberate but in that case I don't think both could be tested.
So
> my best guess at this failure is that the order that abstract methods are
> checked has changed between 1.3 and 1.4.
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
> If not, I will rename the property in the page file to match the abstract
> get/set method.  This leaves the test failing on the set method for 1.3,
but
> I don't know how 1.4 will react - I suspect that 1.4 will still fail on
the
> get method, so in all liklihood removing the get method from Eight.java
will
> be the safest way to guarantee the order the methods are checked.  If this
> defeats the point of the test, let me know.
>
> R
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message