looking for leads as to why Infusion Builder tests are failing.

Justin Obara obara.justin at gmail.com
Mon Nov 2 14:11:55 UTC 2009


 From what I recall from when I was looking at this a while ago, it  
seemed that the checkboxes were disabled on every other run of the  
tests in FF. So the click doesn't have any affect. I didn't look at it  
in IE 8 though so not sure if it  is related.

- Justin
On 1-Nov-09, at 12:54 PM, Colin Clark wrote:

> Hi Laurel,
> On 27-Oct-09, at 11:44 AM, Laurel A. Williams wrote:
>> I'm trying to determine why I have some JS tests failing in the  
>> Infusion Builder and wondering if anyone has any leads to point me  
>> to the solution. In FireFox 3.5.3 on XP when the tests are run, a  
>> bunch of them (specifically 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14)  fail, but only on  
>> every second reload of the test page. In IE 8 on XP the tests fail  
>> (4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14 and also 8, 16) all the time. This is peculiar  
>> enough to make me wonder in anyone else has seen anything similar.
>> If you want to try the tests yourself, check out https://source.fluidproject.org/svn/incubator/custom-build/trunk/ 
>>  and run infusion-builder/tests/html/customBuild-tests.html
>> Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
> This didn't ring any bells for me, but I did take some time to trace  
> through your tests to learn more about what is going on. It looks  
> pretty clear to me that a call to jQuery UI's simulate() is failing  
> periodically.  The element you are trying to click on is definitely  
> there, it's just not correctly receiving the event. I'm seeing this,  
> for example, at line 404 of customBuild-tests.js.
> I'd like to hear more from others who know simulate() better than I  
> do. If necessary, an alternative approach is to programmatically  
> adjust the "checked" attribute on your checkboxes instead of  
> simulating click events.
> An aside, I found your tests really difficult to debug, due to the  
> strange way you've structured them. It looks like you committed a  
> big refactoring to these tests back at r7673, and I'm not sure it  
> was entirely for the best. By moving your test functions out into  
> these "generateXyz" functions on a "pseudo-that" called  
> "testingFunctions," you make it harder to set breakpoints in a  
> specific test, rather than for the general case of all similar  
> tests. It also makes readability more difficult. This feels to me  
> like an attempt to remove repetitive code, but at the wrong level of  
> abstraction. I really like how thorough all of these tests are, but  
> I find it hard to quickly see the difference between utility code,  
> setup code, and the test bodies.
> At some point in the future, let's consider what it would take to  
> split up these tests into smaller units based. That said, I don't  
> think we want to invest the time in reworking these tests yet again  
> before we get the Builder released. It's something you'll probably  
> encounter yourself as you use Firebug to track down this issue, but  
> something that can wait for a bit.
> Hope this helps,
> Colin
> ---
> Colin Clark
> Technical Lead, Fluid Project
> http://fluidproject.org
> _______________________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work

More information about the fluid-work mailing list