Fwd: Re: [rfc][icedtea-web] reproducer for PR905

Danesh Dadachanji ddadacha at redhat.com
Tue Aug 21 14:13:29 PDT 2012



On 08/08/12 06:56 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> late reply....  Was waiting for @KnownToFail and then forgotten a bit. Updated to latest state:

Hmm I don't see any @KnownToFail annotations in the tests. Also, you may have skipped my previous message's comments about some typos. 
Perhaps you attached the wrong patch?

>
> 2012-04-18  Jiri Vanek  <jvanek at redhat.com>
>
>      Added tests for PR905 - parameters in jnlp/html application/applet resources
>      * tests/reproducers/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarUrl.html:
>      html file to launch applet, requested archive jar have parameter
>      * tests/reproducers/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarUrl1.jnlp:
>      jnlp file to launch application, requested archive jar have parameter
>      * tests/reproducers/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarUrl2.jnlp:
>      jnlp file to launch application, requested jnlp have parameter
>      * tests/reproducers/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarUrlSigned.html:
>      html file to launch signed applet, requested archive jar have parameter
>      * tests/reproducers/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarUrlSigned1.jnlp:
>      jnlp file to launch signed application, requested archive jar have parameter
>      * tests/reproducers/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarUrlSigned2.jnlp:
>      jnlp file to launch signed application, requested jnlp have parameter
>      * tests/reproducers/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarAppletUrl2.jnlp
>      * tests/reproducers/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarAppletUrl.jnlp
>      * tests/reproducers/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarAppletUrlSigned2.jnlp
>      * tests/reproducers/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarAppletUrlSigned.jnlp
>      variations launching applets from jnlp
>      * tests/reproducers/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/testcases/ParametrizedJarUrlTests.java:
>      testaceses of above ParametrizedJarUrl/jnlps+htmls namely - (parametrizedAppletTestSignedTest)
>      , (testParametrizedJarUrl2), (testParametrizedJarUrlSigned2): passing
>      calls /partially/ with parameter. Those test are passing.
>      (parametrizedAppletTestSignedFirefoxTest) call with parameter upon signed
>      applet in browser, failing and so is representing PR905
>
>
>
> On 05/03/2012 04:51 PM, Danesh Dadachanji wrote:
>> Hi Jiri,
>>
>> Thanks for the updates! There are a few typos, commented below.
>>
>> Did you want to push this into HEAD _before_ the fix for PR905 is there? I'm worried that we're
>> increasing the number of failing tests. On the other hand though, I don't want this to slip through
>> the cracks! What do you think? I was hoping to get PR905's fix done with this and have the
>> changesets pushed simultaneously but I've been too busy to take care of it. :(
>>
>> On 18/04/12 10:12 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>> On 04/04/2012 04:42 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This reproducer is representing pr905 behaviour. All the tests except
>>>>>> signed jar with parametrised archive are passing, which is correct, and
>>>>>> the failing test is representing the issue.
>>>>>>
>>> ......snip
>>>    All issues mentioned here should be fixed in new patch
>>> Especially fixed vendor/homepage of tests, unified ?test=..., and using of already pushed signed
>>> applet test
>>> ......snip
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> changelog:
>>>
>>> 2012-04-18  Jiri Vanek <jvanek at redhat.com>
>>>
>>>      Added tests for PR905 - parameters in jnlp/html application/applet resources
>>>      * tests/jnlp_tests/simple/AppletTest/testcases/AppletTestTests.java:
>>>      fixed reference to PROCESS_TIMEOUT by class instead by reference
>>>      * tests/jnlp_tests/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarUrl.html:
>>>      html file to launch applet, requested archive jar have parameter
>>>      * tests/jnlp_tests/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarUrl1.jnlp:
>>>      jnlp file to launch application, requested archive jar have parameter
>>>      * tests/jnlp_tests/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarUrl2.jnlp:
>>>      jnlp file to launch application, requested jnlp have parameter
>>>      * tests/jnlp_tests/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarUrlSigned.html:
>>>      html file to launch signed applet, requested archive jar have parameter
>>>      * tests/jnlp_tests/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarUrlSigned1.jnlp:
>>>      jnlp file to launch signed application, requested archive jar have parameter
>>>      * tests/jnlp_tests/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarUrlSigned2.jnlp:
>>>      jnlp file to launch signed application, requested jnlp have parameter
>>>      * tests/jnlp_tests/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarAppletUrl2.jnlp
>>>      * tests/jnlp_tests/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarAppletUrl.jnlp
>>>      * tests/jnlp_tests/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarAppletUrlSigned2.jnlp
>>>      * tests/jnlp_tests/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/resources/ParametrizedJarAppletUrlSigned.jnlp
>>>      variations launching applets from jnlp
>>>      * tests/jnlp_tests/simple/ParametrizedJarUrl/testcases/ParametrizedJarUrlTests.java:
>>>      testaceses of above ParametrizedJarUrl/jnlps+htmls namely - (parametrizedAppletTestSignedTest)
>>
>> s/testaceses/testcases/
>>
>>>      , (testParametrizedJarUrl2), (testParametrizedJarUrlSigned2): passing
>>>      calls /partially/ with parameter. Those test are passing.
>>>      (parametrizedAppletTestSignedFirefoxTest) call with parameter upon signed
>>>      applet in browser, failing and so is representing PR905
>>>
>>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> +        String s3 = "applet was initialised";
>>> +        Assert.assertTrue("AppletTest stdout should contains " + s3 + " bud didn't",
>>> pr.stdout.contains(s3));
>>
>> s/should contains/should contain/
>> s/bud didn't/but didn't/
>>
>> This is basically all over the place again!
>>
>> How do these keep slipping back in? :/ Which test case are you using as a template to generate the
>> rest? We should fix that one up in HEAD.
>



More information about the distro-pkg-dev mailing list