- From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:36:18 -0800
- To: Charles F Wiecha <wiecha@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-forms@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFB48F1D0B.8BC2CA1F-ON882576C8.0080D14B-882576C8.0081AAC0@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Charlie,
Not that it will be a lot of fun or anything, but would it be possible to
get this test (and the other tests) converted to the common style used by
the rest of the test suite? I think the only difference is that the rest
of the test suite seems to use namespace qualification on the HTML
elements, e.g. xhtml:head, xhtml:title, xhtml:body, xhtml:html, etc.
For this particular test, I think it will be easier to write an automated
test if you drop the modal messages on xforms-submit. We're really only
interested in whether the xforms-submit-error happens.
Moreover, the xforms-submit-error message really needs to have conditional
logic on it to test whether the xforms-submit-error is happening for the
right reason. So, please add the following to the xforms-submit-error
message:
if="event('error-type')='submission-in-progress'"
Then, you pass the test if you get the message, and an xforms-submit-error
for any other reason is a fail because something else is wrong with the
processor.
Now, I realize it is technically still possible for someone to pass this
test by simply failing every submission with this error type. Sort of like
providing the following software for calculating the answer to the meaning
of life, the universe and everything: void main() { printf("42\n"); }
But, we don't just have one test in the test suite :-) So, it seems to me
it would still be OK to omit the message action that hooks xforms-submit.
Cheers,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Lotus Forms
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com
Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
Blog RSS feed:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
From: Charles F Wiecha/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: public-forms@w3.org
Date: 02/12/2010 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Test 11.2.a is broken
Updated to use Leigh's new timout features on xformstest.org...Charlie
[attachment "W3C-11.2.a.xhtml" deleted by John Boyer/CanWest/IBM]
Charles Wiecha
Multichannel Web Interaction
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
P.O. Box 704
Yorktown Heights, N.Y. 10598
Phone: (914) 784-6180, T/L 863-6180, Cell: (914) 282-3483
wiecha@us.ibm.com
From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
To: public-forms@w3.org
Date: 01/19/2010 03:27 PM
Subject: Test 11.2.a is broken
Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org
The test attempts to dispatch two xforms-submit events one right after the
other to the same submission.
The test then claims you should *not* see an xforms-submit-error.
This may have been true when submissions were assumed to be synchronous by
default. In that case, it is true you wouldn't see the error but it is
also true that the test wouldn't be testing what it is supposed to be
testing.
The test is supposed to be a test of failure of the second concurrent
submit requested on the same submission element.
In XForms 1.1, the default submission mode is asynchronous. It seems in
that case that you might see an xforms-submit-error on the second
submission if the first one has not completed. This would be a violation
of what the test claims should happen but it would be a proper test of what
the test is supposed to be testing.
The problem with it being a proper test, though, is that the first
submission is by no means guaranteed to take long enough to ensure that the
second submission will fail.
One way to test is to have the submission point to a bogus resource and
count on the browser timeout to create the needed delay.
Let's talk about how to fix this test.
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Lotus Forms
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com
Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
Blog RSS feed:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 23:36:57 UTC