looking for leads as to why Infusion Builder tests are failing.
Laurel A. Williams
laurel.williams at utoronto.ca
Tue Nov 3 19:25:33 UTC 2009
Because I had a little Justin time available to me today, he showed me
some investigations that he had done on this problem. I've posted the
That is all I'm going to do on this task for now.
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 Clark
> Technical Lead, Fluid Project
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 269 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the fluid-work