jQuery 1.5.1 testing

John Kremer jkkremer at gmail.com
Tue Mar 22 13:58:14 UTC 2011


Hi Antranig,

I will write up those tests and get them up on Friday and will take a look
at your fix as well.

Appreciate the input!

John

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Antranig Basman <
antranig.basman at colorado.edu> wrote:

> Thanks for looking into these issues, John. Currently our implementation of
> fluid.value() will not pass these tests either, since it defers to the base
> jQuery.val() implementation in the case the node does not represent a radio
> button or a checkbox. However, it will be easy enough to upgrade our
> implementation of fluid.value() so that it adapts over the failings of the
> jQuery 1.5.1 implementation. Please could you also expand your test case
> coverage so that it deals with radio buttons and checkboxes also.
>
> I'm dubious about your 3rd test case... "" is a value, even though a falsy
> one, and the behaviour should be to operate val() as a setter and hence
> return the jQuery as per the docs, rather than the test_value as your test
> tests. The only real contract bug in 1.5.1 is the one relating to the
> handling of "undefined" as far as I can see.
>
> I've just "opportunistically" pushed a fix for this issue to Infusion trunk
> - let me know if this succeeds in letting fluid.value() adapt to all
> manifestations of this issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Antranig.
>
>
> On 21/03/2011 16:41, John Kremer wrote:
>
>> Hey Colin,
>>
>> Thanks for the details. I will check them out tomorrow when I get in and
>> write up and run some more tests to see if that may solve the problem.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Colin Clark<colinbdclark at gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>  Hi John,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the detective work. There's a function in DataBinding.js,
>>> fluid.value(), which advertises itself as a "generalization" of
>>> jQuery.val(). Does it pass your tests? And if so, do you think
>>> fluid.value()
>>> is a suitable replacement for jQuery.val() in the places where we're
>>> currently seeing regressions?
>>>
>>> If so, maybe can promote it to the core Fluid.js file and just never use
>>> jQuery.val() again.
>>>
>>> Too bad jQuery broke the contract on val() and filed it "won't fix." :(
>>>
>>> Colin
>>>
>>> On 2011-03-21, at 5:27 PM, John Kremer wrote:
>>>
>>>  Just wrote a few jQuery 1.5.1 tests for .val():
>>>>
>>>>  var test_value = "abc";
>>>>            jqUnit.assertEquals("Testing textbox value", test_value,
>>>>
>>> $("#textbox-with-value").val());
>>>
>>>>            jqUnit.assertEquals("Testing textbox value", test_value,
>>>>
>>> $("#textbox-with-value").val(undefined));
>>>
>>>>            jqUnit.assertEquals("Testing textbox value", test_value,
>>>>
>>> $("#textbox-with-value").val(""));
>>>
>>>>         });
>>>>
>>>> The only passing test is the top one, and passing a falsy returns the
>>>>
>>> jQuery object as oppose to the value of the object.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are many tests that are failing in the migration over to 1.5.1 due
>>>>
>>> to this issue.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/jkkremer/infusion/tree/FLUID-4113
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://github.com/jkkremer/infusion/commit/39a684870854dfe205f8a6589b2c1526aba47697
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20110322/8f91c975/attachment.html>


More information about the fluid-work mailing list