ping? [RFC] [icedtea-web] reproducer for handling spaces

[Jiri Vanek]

On 11/03/2011 09:26 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> On 11/03/2011 04:16 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>> On 11/03/2011 08:05 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2011 02:33 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2011 05:35 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
>>>>> On 11/01/2011 12:52 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>>>>> Hi! This is reproducer for recently fixed PR804 and for new PR811
>>>>>> (based
>>>>>> on Behaviour of javaws when handling spaces).
>>>>>> Currently all local-files requests test are passing (804) ( just
>>>>>> one of
>>>>>> them was passing before 804 patch) and all remote (811) requests are
>>>>>> falling.
>>>>>> Some minor changes were necessary to engine. The reproducer itself
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> not work without this chnages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps we should extract scripts that prepare reproducers from the
>>>>> makefile so we wont need to source NEW_LINE_IFS. What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> On one side I'm not sure how better will be to source extracted scripts
>>>> which prepare reproducers. On the other side, I'm not sure what to
>>>> imagine under "extract them". I imagine separate bash script.... What do
>>>> you yourselves mean?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I meant bash scripts. Sorry if this was not very clear.
>>>
>>> I am thinking of something (roughly) like this:
>>> ./jnlp-reproducers --compile
>>> ./jnlp-reproducers --test-all
>>> ./jnlp-reproducers --test simple 'Spaces can be everywhere.jnlp'
>>
>> Then I imagined the same:) but I do not think it is good idea:( At the
>> end number of exported makefile variables can be to large.
>>
>
> Oh, fair enough.
>
>>>
>>> Then again, I am not sure if it is really a good idea - especially the
>>> bit that moves compiling instructions away from the makefile. But I
>>> think it's an excellent opportunity to sneak in my idea about easily
>>> being able to run a single test from the command line ;)
>> But to your second "sneaking" :o) question - what exactly do you want
>> (me) to improve?. Currently, i can comfortably run/debug each reproducer
>> from his testsuite inside IDE (one by one or all in one ). And I can
>> also easily verify the behaviour by running prepared reproducer from
>> some virtual server with just compiled javaws(or again debug inisde
>> IDE). What else can you want!:)
>
> Oh, that's very cool! I was trying to debug a reproducer once and couldn't figure out how to do this. Would you mind explaining how you do this?

I will write this tomorrow or during weekend ok? (Will need my full attention, now I'm getting sleepy :) )

Just one more clarification. I can debug reproducer XOR debug netx. I was not successful to debug it together. Enough?
>
>> Because it is so easy to run single reproducer from IDE, then i believe
>> that the only problem to run it from commandline is correct setting of
>> classpath.
>>>
>>> As for restoring IFS, you can do simple assignments in the makefile to
>>> restore IFS:
>>
>> Actually, you can't. I do not know why, but inside mkefile, the IFS
>> variable is different from shell (just space in my case, whether in
>> shell contains space,\t and \n). If I'm changing it in "shell", then I
>> prefer to restore it by the same way. The line you wrote, was my exactly
>> first idea:)
>>
>
> Well if IFS has a different value when running under make, how is that a problem? As long as you set it back to the old IFS, I would expect things to work fine.

Ok. Unless it cause some catastrophe I will do this as you suggested.

>
>>> IFS=$IFS_BACKUP
>>>
>
> Typo, should be "$$IFS_BACKUP" (two $ instead of one).
>
> Cheers,
> Omair


J