tapestry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard Lewis-Shell" <rlewissh...@mac.com>
Subject JDK 1.3 test failures
Date Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:44:19 GMT
Right.  It's fixed.  Almost.  I hope.

It seems that the flaky JDK is the IBM 1.3.1 JDK (as ships with WSAD 5.1).
The latest Sun 1.3.1 and 1.4.2 JDKs are fine.

I've fixed the c9.Eight test as mentioned earlier, which means that only
TestEnhancedClassFactory.testCreateFailure() fails on the IBM JDK.  All the
other tests are passing for me with Sun's latest JDKs.  Given this, I see no
reason to remove the test (as I earlier suggested).

R

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Lewis-Shell" <rlewisshell@mac.com>
To: "Tapestry development" <tapestry-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: TestPropertySpecification.xml is also failing (with JDK 1.3)


> > This is interesting, since the unit tests work (sans the one that was
> > modified) work for me ok with JDK 1.3.1 :)
>
> Hmm, exactly which 1.3 JDK version are you using that sees all the tests
> pass?
>
> I have now grabbed the latest 1.3.1 (_09), which gives me different
results
> for the two tests in question:
> Sun's 1.3.1_09 JDK: testCreateFailure() passes,
> TestPropertySpecification.xml fails
> IBM's 1.3.1 JDK: testCreateFailure() fails, TestPropertySpecification.xml
> passes
>
> Arrgggghhhhh.
>
> If I modify Eight.page's property to be named "enhancedProperty", I can
get
> TestPropertySpecification to pass with both.
>
> So that will just leave testCreateFailure() failing with IBM's 1.3.1 JDK.
>
> R
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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