- From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:45:10 -0500
- To: public-mobileok-checker <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>
The warning is from our code -- not sure if I like it, but whatever. The problem here is that the page is larger than 50KB so we ignore the body. I am ... not sure why I picked 50KB. That seems low, as a limit guarding against massive documents. I'll make it 500KB. The resulting error is a little funny because we don't have a document, but proceed with the test. This is a more general problem. I think we just don't run tests without a body, right? Again, this is just a question of what garbage we put out when we get garbage in. Partial, meaningless results are better than partial, meaningless results plus an exception. Sean On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:56 AM, <bugzilla@farnsworth.w3.org> wrote: > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5538 > > Summary: Unexpected "Can't find doc content" exception > Product: mobileOK Basic checker > Version: unspecified > Platform: PC > OS/Version: Linux > Status: NEW > Severity: normal > Priority: P2 > Component: Java Library > AssignedTo: srowen@google.com > ReportedBy: dom@w3.org > > > When trying to check http://anqam.com, the library aborts with the following > trace: > Exception in thread "main" org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.basic.TestException: Can't find > doc content > at > org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.basic.AbstractCSSTestImplementation.getDocContentLineNumber(AbstractCSSTestImplementation.java:150) > at > org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.basic.AbstractCSSTestImplementation.generateResultsOnCSSContent(AbstractCSSTestImplementation.java:66) > at > org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.basic.AbstractCSSTestImplementation.runTest(AbstractCSSTestImplementation.java:56) > at org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.basic.Tester.runTests(Tester.java:75) > at org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.basic.Tester.main(Tester.java:211) > > For some reason, the (for sure existing) content of the document isn't written > in the moki document. Earlier in the processing, the message "ATTENTION: No > document" appears, which apparently isn't emitted by our code - this may be > lead to follow. >
Received on Friday, 7 March 2008 02:45:27 UTC