fluid-work IRC Logs-2010-12-15

[07:51:21 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: can FLUID-3881 be closed now... has everyone checked in about the unsupported features?
[07:52:23 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Justin_o, yes, I think FLUID-3881 can be closed. It's quite likely that some functions that have been in the framework, etc. for quite a while might actually be "unsupported," but I think we need to take care of that as we go; there's too much to hold up the release
[07:52:30 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> anything new has been considered
[07:52:42 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: thanks...
[07:53:07 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> did bosmon happen to comment at all about the reorderer functions that were made public?
[07:56:37 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: what's happening with FLUID-3799?
[07:57:35 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Justin_o, two things: a) I posted an email to the list about the question of whether or not our demos should be written as components. Until we actually have a bit of a discussion about that, I think we should wait, because it affects at least three demos
[07:58:02 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> b) I posted a patch on the JIRA that addresses Bosmon's other issue, with some hard-coded selectors. I've assigned the JIRA to Bosmon for review
[07:58:08 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> so it's in his hands
[07:58:11 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> or for someone else to review
[07:58:38 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: thank you
[08:01:02 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: the demos that would have to be rewritten.. are they all shown through the demo portal, or is that including the standalone and integration demos?
[08:01:21 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> no, portal demos: keyboard-a11y plugin, progress and inline edit
[08:01:51 CST(-0600)] <jessm> anastasiac: inline-edit isn't a component in the portal?
[08:02:08 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> the demo application is not, itself, implemented as a fluid component
[08:02:11 CST(-0600)] * anastasiac double-checks this
[08:02:31 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> the demo app uses the inline edit component, but it itself isn't a component
[08:03:23 CST(-0600)] <jessm> ok, my sense is the following: let's focus on getting 1.3 out the door. And this can be a planning point for 1.4 since we're slated to do a portal facelift for that release
[08:03:44 CST(-0600)] <jessm> i just don't think we have the time to take this on for 1.3 and it might just be a distraction to us
[08:03:51 CST(-0600)] <jessm> does that seem reasonable?
[08:04:11 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> jessm: i would agree with that
[08:04:52 CST(-0600)] <jessm> Justin_o: i'm feeling urgency for 1.3 – i'm assuming that's appropriate since it's Wednesday – correct me if i'm wrong!
[08:05:02 CST(-0600)] <jessm> anastasiac: does that seem reasonable?
[08:05:14 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> jessm: i think you're right... we're already 3 days overdue on testing
[08:05:40 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> yes, jessm, that's what I was thinking. If we decide to change the demos, we can do it for 1.4
[08:05:59 CST(-0600)] <jessm> cool, all eyes on 1.3 then
[08:25:43 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> hey anastasiac is there more linting to do
[08:26:25 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> heidi_, that depends on how far you and jhung got on the tests last night (smile)
[08:26:36 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> I didn't get a chance to do anything on the tests, just framework
[08:26:41 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> k (smile) jhung how are we doin on /tests linting
[08:26:52 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> your patch has been attached to the JIRA with all the others, awaiting review
[08:27:07 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> k
[08:27:14 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> heidi_, did you get through all of the component test files, or only some?
[08:27:20 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> all
[08:27:36 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> ok, good. and jhung was working on the other test files?
[08:28:04 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> anastasiac do you know the jira # off hand
[08:28:17 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yeah, but not sure if jhung was able to work late to finish them - there were a lot
[08:30:09 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> heidi_, the jira is 3757; jhung said he didn't get to the framework test files, so I'm going to have a look at them now
[08:30:37 CST(-0600)] <jhung> heidi_, anastasiac: I was working on the Escalated test but discovered that the tabs test is missing a dependency. I'm planning on fixing that today.
[08:31:02 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> jhung anastasiac okay i'll do /test-core
[08:31:04 CST(-0600)] <jhung> justin_o: Patch-i of FLUID-3487 looks good in IE6 and IE7.
[08:31:15 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> or sorry
[08:31:26 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i meant /manual-tests !
[08:31:55 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> do we need to lint /test-core ? are those our js or external
[08:32:08 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> jhung, when you're done that, maybe you can help with the framework tests - there are a lot!
[08:32:24 CST(-0600)] <jhung> Sure.
[08:32:59 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> justin_o ^
[08:33:32 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> jhung, heidi_, just a reminder to use the JSLint settings described on the wiki: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Coding+and+Commit+Standards
[08:33:41 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yep
[08:33:47 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> and detab
[09:25:02 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> michelled: hey fish
[09:25:24 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'm reading over Justin_o's extremely helpful update email
[09:25:33 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I see that we've got two frameworky reviews on our plate before QA testing can start
[09:25:46 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I've had some coffee and I'm raring to go
[09:25:55 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> How do you want to split up FLUID-3819 and FLUID-3778?
[09:26:44 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Justin_o: I've closed http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3487
[09:26:52 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> colinclark: thank you
[09:26:54 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It's good to go
[09:27:59 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Justin_o: I've also reviewed and closed http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3730
[09:28:15 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> colinclark: thank you for that one too
[09:28:29 CST(-0600)] <michelled> colinclark: I've looked at 3819
[09:28:35 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> michelled: excellent
[09:28:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Shall I grab 3778?
[09:28:43 CST(-0600)] <michelled> sure
[09:28:52 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ok
[09:31:09 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> michelled: DOS line ending changes by nature are difficult to review
[09:31:23 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> so I'll just do a scan to ensure that the files that were changed are generally sensible
[09:31:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> seem reasonable?
[09:31:43 CST(-0600)] <michelled> yes, seems ok
[09:32:35 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> for http://build.fluidproject.org/infusion/tests/manual-tests/html/dynamic-reorderer.html , is the 'new div' button supposed to do something?
[09:32:49 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> And then run all the unit tests
[09:35:04 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> heidi_: Maybe a good place to start is to look at the implementation and see what it is intended to do?
[09:36:39 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> k. this one is also lookin rough http://build.fluidproject.org/infusion/tests/manual-tests/html/renderer-component-types.html
[09:41:59 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Justin_o: I've just closed http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3778
[09:42:14 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Now seems like a good opportunity to hop on a subway, if you agree, Justin_o
[09:43:15 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> colinclark: sounds good
[09:43:28 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> see y'all in the office shortly
[09:46:29 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Justin_o, jhung, heidi_: I've finished delinting the framework tests, just attaching a patch file now.
[09:46:36 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Justin_o, what's the plan for reviewing all these patches?
[09:47:05 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> mlam, did you ever finish your delinting of framework files? can I help?
[09:47:24 CST(-0600)] <mlam> anastasiac: just finished. fixing one test
[09:48:32 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: the framework ones will be reviewed and committed post release.. for the linting that has been committed we'll have to work out who will review the framework, reorderer, and pager ones...
[09:48:42 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> for the rest we can review and commit as we go along
[09:49:16 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Justin_o - all the framework ones? not just the renderer?
[09:49:50 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> i.e. committed post release
[09:51:00 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: yes... i think that's what we're going to say for this release...
[09:51:29 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> ok, well, the patches for the test files are on the JIRA
[09:52:47 CST(-0600)] <jhung> justin_o: I have fixed the broken escalated test. How should this be handled? Should I create a JIRA and attach a patch?
[09:53:53 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> jhung, that sounds like the right approach
[09:54:11 CST(-0600)] <jhung> anastasiac: okay.
[10:05:04 CST(-0600)] <jhung> anastasiac: I've created a JIRA and uploaded a patch. http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3903
[10:05:28 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> jhung, thanks
[10:07:04 CST(-0600)] <michelled> Justin_o: I just reviewed the linting for the component files and the linting on Fluid.js and DataBinding.js
[10:07:19 CST(-0600)] <michelled> there was a tiny change to UIEnhancer which I've committed - otherwise it was all fine
[10:07:32 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> michelled: thanks...
[10:11:32 CST(-0600)] <michelled> fluid-everyone: we are almost ready to start QA. anastasiac is going to review heidi_ linting patches and commit them. Justin_o is going to review anastasiac's linting patches and commit them
[10:12:04 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i'm just finishing up linting for tests/test-core ... patch up soon
[10:12:11 CST(-0600)] <michelled> cool
[10:12:36 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> heidi_, anastasiac is that all that's left that needs to be linted then?
[10:13:07 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> jhung did you get escalated tests done?
[10:13:24 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Justin_o, I think so - assuming the actual components, etc. are ok
[10:59:08 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: I just committed your framework test linting... is there any other patch there that I can take a look at?
[11:00:00 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Justin_o, I haven't looked at the escalated tests patch
[11:00:42 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Justin_o, what's the status of the manual test? some don't seem to work properly... should I try to fix them, or leave it to 1.4 to either fix or remove them?
[11:03:20 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: yah... i think maybe just filing a blocker for 1.4 to review the manual and escalated tests
[11:03:55 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> heidi_: did you lint the test core files?
[11:04:06 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> justin_o yep just putting up patch now!
[11:04:10 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> heidi_: thanks
[11:04:18 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> i think that will be the last one we look at
[11:05:32 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Justin_o, FYI I filed that issue: http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3904
[11:05:44 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> justin_o its on the issue now
[11:05:52 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac, heidi_ thanks
[11:06:16 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> so lint stuff finished?
[11:06:56 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> heidi_: just need to get your last patch in... i think that will be ie
[11:06:57 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> it
[11:07:03 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> so we can start testing right after that
[11:07:36 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: would you be able to review/commit heidi's latest patch?
[11:07:51 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Justin_o, will do
[11:07:57 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> thanks
[11:18:55 CST(-0600)] * jhung enjoying his steeped gnat tea.
[11:29:02 CST(-0600)] <michelled> just don't drink the tea anastasiac has been feeding them!
[11:30:16 CST(-0600)] <jhung> michelled: Suddenly I feel like going outside in the extreme cold to drink my buggy tea.
[11:30:38 CST(-0600)] <michelled> (smile)
[11:31:10 CST(-0600)] <jhung> justin_o: oh king. What should I do now?
[11:31:58 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> jhung: we are almost ready to test... as soon as anastasiac gets the last linting patch in... we will be ready to go
[11:32:16 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> getting there...
[11:32:19 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> thanks
[11:32:40 CST(-0600)] <jhung> k
[11:36:49 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Justin_o, I've reviewed and committed all relevant de-linting patches
[11:37:34 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: thank you very much...
[11:37:56 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: could you please file another jira that indicates which files we still have left to commit and make that a 1.4 blocker as well.
[11:38:05 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> will do
[11:38:08 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: thanks
[11:39:51 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> fluid-everyone: we can now start testing Infusion 1.3.. i've just sent an e-mail to the list about it.. please make sure to read the notes at the top and bottom
[11:41:01 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> justin_o build servr has been rebuilt with newly delinted files?
[11:44:33 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> heidi_: oops not yet
[11:44:38 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> thanks.. i forgot about that
[11:44:43 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> np!
[11:45:07 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i wish i was playing soccer with ya'll today! i could use some running around to warm up. so c-c-c-old here.
[11:45:52 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> (smile) yah.. it's been pretty frigid the last few days... looking forward to running around
[11:46:10 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Justin_o, has the build site been re-deployed since my last commit?
[11:46:22 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> ah, heidi_ just mentioned that
[11:46:24 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: just triggered
[11:46:46 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac, heidi_ : it should be ready now
[11:46:54 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> cool
[11:48:59 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> heidi_: which tests do you think you'll start with?
[11:50:01 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> I think we can do InlineEdit ones, and progress at the moment
[11:50:12 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> justin_o i can start with those!
[11:50:52 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> heidi_: okay.. just move the ones you will be doing over to your task list...
[11:50:57 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> ah...do i need to make you one?
[11:53:45 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> heidi_: i just added a task list for you...so you can fill it up as you go
[11:53:51 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> okay thanks justin
[12:02:02 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> anastasiac do i move a task from left to my name, or copy
[12:03:52 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> oh n/m, it's different now
[13:34:13 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> jhung, jameswy are you able to help with testing?
[13:35:20 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> justin_o: Yep, but I do have a small problem: I'm running 10.5. Thoughts?
[13:35:45 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> jameswy: you can do some winxp tests on the other machine
[13:35:58 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> or you can use one of mine for mac 10.6 testing
[13:36:38 CST(-0600)] <michelled> fluid-everyone: let's skip dev meeting today in favour of release (smile)
[13:36:42 CST(-0600)] <michelled> any complaints?
[13:36:55 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> +1
[13:36:56 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> michelled: i'm fine with that (smile)
[13:36:59 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> +1
[13:37:00 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> +1
[13:37:49 CST(-0600)] <michelled> fluid-everyone: can you give us all a quick update on what you are working on to the moment?
[13:38:08 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> testing progress component on win xp
[13:38:08 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> testing, of course (wink)
[13:38:16 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> rich-text inline edit
[13:38:33 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> Fluid style guide/suggest, but starting testing within the half-hour.
[13:38:53 CST(-0600)] <michelled> I've got 4 reviews on my plate. I'll probably starte with 3825 and switch to uploader when colinclark_ and mlam are ready to do that review
[13:39:03 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Reviewing FLUID-3711, then other reviews
[13:39:25 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> testing
[13:39:55 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> mlam, jhung: ^
[13:40:22 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> jessm: ^
[13:40:29 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> ping ping ping
[13:41:11 CST(-0600)] <mlam> I'm ready anytime
[13:41:16 CST(-0600)] <jessm> i am working on wrapping up planning from the infrastructure mtg. then i'm onto planning
[13:41:24 CST(-0600)] <jessm> as soon as the king tells me where to jump
[13:41:40 CST(-0600)] <mlam> I'm going back to helping Cindy with integrating the uploader into Atutor
[13:41:48 CST(-0600)] <jhung> justin_o: I can do any NVDA, Win7, IE8, and FF3.6 testing.
[13:43:23 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> jhung: could you start by doing the Win7 tasks for the inline edits and progress components
[13:46:18 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Hi all - I am wondering whether FLUID-3899 has fallen through the cracks so far?
[13:47:38 CST(-0600)] <mlam> Justin_o: cindyli is trying to implement the uploader from scratch again and wont' need my assistance for a little while. anything i can help with? if not, i can go back to finish up my linting task
[13:48:02 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> mlam: sure... could you do some testing work
[13:48:13 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> do you still have ie6 and ie7?
[13:48:17 CST(-0600)] <mlam> i have 6
[13:48:33 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> do you mind starting in on the progress and inline edit tests with that
[13:48:52 CST(-0600)] <mlam> yup, np
[13:49:19 CST(-0600)] <jhung> fluid-everyone: make sure to keep an eye on this page while testing: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Release+Testing+Tasks
[13:49:28 CST(-0600)] <jhung> So we don't duplicate.
[13:49:45 CST(-0600)] <jhung> Assign tasks to yourself if you're planning on testing.
[13:51:19 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> fluid-everyone: thanks jhung.. so to add tasks to your name you have to edit the wiki markup... cut and paste the task from the general tasklist to your own.
[13:52:39 CST(-0600)] <jessm> Bosmon: i don't see FLUID-3899 in the bug parade, perhaps Justin_o can take a look after he gets testing rolling
[13:52:54 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Ok
[13:53:02 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I did add the issue itself to bug parade
[13:53:31 CST(-0600)] <jessm> Bosmon: oh, did you add it yesterday?
[13:53:36 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> But I think it really is a blocker, we either have to apply the fix or withdraw the functionality completely
[13:53:38 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> On Monday
[13:53:54 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> Bosmon: I think we had to talk about that patch
[13:56:45 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Justin_o, Bosmon: Let's talk about it now
[13:56:49 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> I see a patch here
[13:56:59 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> colinclark_: now's probably a good time
[13:57:07 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Is this the issue that yura_ was struggling with yesterday?
[13:57:27 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It is one of them
[13:57:49 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It will actually cause the primeCacheFromResources call to fail for "almost everyone"
[13:58:06 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It turns out the test cases were passing only because they do not include the FluidIoC.js file
[13:58:23 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Anyone who does include it, which we imagine will be most people, will get an exception
[13:59:08 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Bosmon: This is pretty precarious
[13:59:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> We've started QA testing
[13:59:13 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> yura_: You seem to have falledn off IM
[13:59:23 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> if we modify the framework now, we're going to have to restart QA again
[14:00:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> I've been a little behind on email, but I didn't see anything about this issue on the list this morning
[14:00:30 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> So my understanding is that we went ahead with testing under the assumption that this issue couldn't be patched in time.
[14:00:36 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Ah
[14:00:40 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Looks like you got the fix up at around 1 am last night
[14:00:42 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I brought up the issue a few times yesterday
[14:00:47 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> No, the fix was the previous day
[14:00:56 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Ok
[14:01:03 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Various people assured me they would get time to look at it yesterday, but it just fell through the cracks I geuss
[14:01:43 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Was I one of them?
[14:02:04 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> Bosmon: will the change be isolated to ioc stuff?
[14:02:44 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> The only reference I see to FLUID-3899 in the channel yesterday was you asking a question about it, Bosmon, with no response
[14:02:45 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Justin_o: Yes, the change is just related to the code path for that one function
[14:03:12 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Well anyway, I doubt the exact history of what happened with this issue will decide what we do about it
[14:03:25 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> The question is, what are we inclined to do NOW, now we see what situation we are in (tongue)
[14:03:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> I'm going to take a look at the patch closely now, Bosmon
[14:03:46 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Thanks, colinclark_
[14:04:05 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Can you please do an Infusion-wide search for any references to primeCacheFromResources()?
[14:04:12 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> There are none
[14:04:13 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> My theory is that there are no dependencies here
[14:04:15 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> ok
[14:04:17 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Except in its definition and its test cases
[14:04:26 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> colinclark_, Bosmon: if the code change is in fact isolated to IoC and won't affect other parts of the framework or other code then we should be okay because we haven't started testing the uploader yet.
[14:04:34 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> The Reorderer also depends on IoC now
[14:04:35 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> But you've modified withComponent(), which is central to every use of IoC
[14:04:40 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> Bosmon: really
[14:04:40 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> ok
[14:04:43 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> didn't know that
[14:04:46 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> As does the ARIA labelling component
[14:05:03 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> okay.. we haven't started testing Reorderer yet
[14:05:07 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Although this is "sneak peek" as a public API, in implementation, large parts of the framework have started to depend on it
[14:05:30 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Which is, ironically, why the issue is so serious... most people will include IoC to have the framework work, and then primeCacheFromResources will fail
[14:06:09 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> okay, here we go...
[14:06:22 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> So, the patch touches two public functions:
[14:06:29 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> fluid.fetchResources.primeCacheFromResources()
[14:06:42 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> and fluid.withNewComponent() (which, incidentally, is "unsupported")
[14:06:59 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> These functions are only used by components that are IoC-ified
[14:07:13 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> In Infusion 1.3, that includes Uploader, Reorderer, and the ariaLabeller
[14:07:20 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Nothing depends on Uploader
[14:07:24 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> nothing depends on Reorderer
[14:07:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> only Uploader and Reorderer depend on the ariaLabller
[14:07:39 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Well, that is nice and tidy (tongue)
[14:07:43 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> So, I'll apply this patch and test Uploader and Reorderer
[14:07:51 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> if they all continue to work, we're in business
[14:07:58 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> and I will vote +1 to sneak this one in
[14:08:01 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> colinclark_: please test in IE6 as well
[14:08:08 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Justin_o: For sure, King
[14:08:18 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> I will not make that mistake again any time soon, after yesterday
[14:08:19 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> (wink)
[14:08:22 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> (smile)
[14:08:35 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Justin_o: What do you think of this plan?
[14:08:35 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> "please don't shell us, King" (tongue)
[14:08:56 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> the plan sounds good (smile)
[14:09:12 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Then I'll get back to reviewing FLUID-3711
[14:09:53 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> Bosmon: now that you are here.. i just want to double check that you went through the reorderer and the labeller and marked anything that needed to be as unsupported
[14:09:59 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Bosmon: One other thing
[14:10:13 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> I assume this patch is unlikely to apply, post DOS and lint changes?
[14:10:21 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I think that's right, yes
[14:10:25 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Shall I regenerate it now?
[14:10:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> If you would, it would help me a lot
[14:16:14 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> colinclark_: Version "b" of the patch is attached to FLUID-3899 which now applied to current trunk
[14:31:13 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Bosmon: Thank you
[14:36:08 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Bosmon: Your new patch...
[14:36:17 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> it doesn't quite seem right
[14:36:29 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> For example, in CachingTests.js, you seem to be removing this line:
[14:36:30 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> -/global jQuery, fluid, jqUnit, window, start, stop/
[14:36:51 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> And replacing it with three separate global lines that aren't quite as comprehensive as these are
[14:41:10 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I'm sorry.... it's possible that I resolved some of the linting conflicts incorrectly
[14:41:36 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I did this yesterday when I was in a bit of a hurry and the file was quite a mess
[14:41:46 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> That file might need relinting again
[14:42:03 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Bosmon: I can say from experience that it was a very difficult file to lint
[14:42:13 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> and due to a mistake on my part, I've already linted it fully twice
[14:42:20 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Oh dear
[14:42:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> Is there any way around it?
[14:42:37 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> I guess I can apply your changes by hand
[14:42:50 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I don't think so, there were a quite a number of changes in that file to fix the test cases
[14:43:02 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I'm not really sure which would be easier out of relinting and applying changes by hand
[14:43:04 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> ok
[14:43:15 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> I'm going to try applying by hand
[14:43:26 CST(-0600)] <colinclark_> I just don't think I can bare the task of relinting (wink)
[14:43:52 CST(-0600)] <mlam> Justin_o: in the QA test plan of progress, tests 3-5 are no longer applicable, right?
[14:45:37 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> those are for a different demo
[14:45:43 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> they are for the manual test
[14:45:49 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> mlam: ^
[14:46:06 CST(-0600)] <mlam> ohh ok
[14:47:39 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> justin_o im doing the wcag test for progress - is that right?
[14:50:05 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> heidi_: sure... i'm not sure if those all got updated though
[14:50:12 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> k
[14:50:22 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> running through achecker is prob a good idea for all components
[14:50:26 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> at least
[14:51:00 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> heidi_: yes.. i'm wondering if once everything is in.. you can take on the check all shipped exmples tasks in a browser or two and run them through achecker and with a screen reader
[14:51:37 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> justin_o sure
[14:51:42 CST(-0600)] <jhung> Simple Inline Edit failing a unit test in IE8 win7. Filed here: http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3908
[14:51:51 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> justin_o let me know when
[14:53:08 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> heidi_: colin and michelled are just finishing up the reviews now.. i think it will be sometime tomorrow
[14:54:05 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> cool ill be in the office tomorra
[14:54:27 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> heidi_: yes... it's celebration day tomorrow...
[14:54:43 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yay
[14:56:42 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> jhung: I believe this issue is caused by a jQuery bug... which I guess is still not resolved
[14:57:01 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> There has been a report that "visibility calculations" done by the ":visible" selector are not correct on IE8
[14:57:07 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> But I guess we should look into it again
[14:57:20 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> You may well find an earlier report of this issue, since it comes round pretty regularly every release cycle
[14:58:16 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> So please unify this JIRA with any of the probably large number of duplicates of it that there should be (tongue)
[14:58:43 CST(-0600)] <michelled> heidi_: I recommend wearing stretchy pants tomorrow (wink)
[14:58:50 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> lol
[15:04:45 CST(-0600)] <jhung> bosmon: yes I saw the other Jira. I have added Win7 to the list and closed the one I filed.
[15:06:58 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> mlam did you test the progress setting to less than 0 value?
[15:09:11 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> heidi_: that's a known issue
[15:09:14 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> http://issues.fluidproject.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&amp;jqlQuery=project+%3D+FLUID+AND+component+%3D+Progress+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC%2C+key+DESC&amp;mode=hide
[15:09:22 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> that's all the progress issues
[15:09:23 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> okay cool, was just going to check if it was reported
[15:09:27 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> thanks
[15:09:32 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> no problem
[15:25:56 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> cindyli, should I expect the Builder php unit tests to all pass?
[15:26:18 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> anastasiac: yes. why? not passing?
[15:26:27 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> not all, not in my browser...
[15:26:38 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> is this the right URL, cindyli? http://forge.fluidproject.org/infusionBuilder/tests/php/InfusionBuilderTests.php
[15:26:56 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> anastasiac: checking..
[15:27:38 CST(-0600)] <jhung> Does anyone know of a Rich Text Inline Edit bug where pressing cancel renders the Undo Edit link? I tried searching and didn't see anything.
[15:28:05 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> anastasiac: yes, right url, is there any change on module or lib dependencies recently?
[15:28:53 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> ah, cindyli, I think I might know what it is: we removed the dependencies on FSS sub-modules - now there's just the one dependency on FSS - the other modules (e.g. fss-layout) are gone
[15:29:06 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> anastasiac: alrite. u get it
[15:29:19 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> anastasiac: need to change unit test accordingly
[15:29:51 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> cindyli, is that something you could do? (I don't know PHP (smile) Justin_o: should cindyli commit changes to the PHP unit tests now?
[15:33:05 CST(-0600)] <mlam> jhung: it wasn't happening in IE6 for me, but it's now happening in FF3.6 right now
[15:34:48 CST(-0600)] <jhung> mlam: It's happening for me in IE8 and FF3.6. I'll make note of that. Filed a Jira for it.
[15:35:12 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> cindyli: http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3910
[15:35:21 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> anastasiac: thx
[15:35:30 CST(-0600)] <mlam> anastasiac: were you getting the same thing for rich text inline edit in FF3.6 and MacOS?
[15:35:39 CST(-0600)] * anastasiac catches up
[15:36:17 CST(-0600)] <jhung> mlam: which OS you running?
[15:36:27 CST(-0600)] <mlam> i'm testing on a vbox , XP
[15:37:12 CST(-0600)] <jhung> mlam, anastasiac: http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3909
[15:37:26 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> jhung, mlam: yes, this is happening in FF3.6 on Mac OS 10.6, but only for the CKEditor, not TinyMCE
[15:38:16 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> sometimes (smile)
[15:41:26 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> cindyli, anastasiac: this patch isn't committed to trunk right?
[15:41:44 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> Justin_o: anastasiac: no
[15:42:13 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> Justin_o: anastasiac: it goes https://source.fluidproject.org/svn/fluid/infrastructure/infusionBuilder/trunk
[15:42:33 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> cindyli: okay.. i think we should commit that one
[15:42:47 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> Justin_o: which one?
[15:42:49 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> anastasiac: can you review and commit cindy's patch
[15:43:02 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> cindyli: the php unit test one
[15:43:12 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> Justin_o: i haven't come up with a patch yet
[15:43:33 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> cindyli: okay... whenever it's ready
[15:43:37 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Justin_o, I can review, but I don't know how well I'll be able to test - it's changes to the PHP code
[15:43:53 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> cindyli: do you still have a local commit?
[15:44:01 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> not comit.. sorry
[15:44:02 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> version
[15:44:31 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> Justin_o: local version of infusion builder? no, but setting up one
[15:45:17 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> cindyli: okay... thanks
[15:45:29 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> np
[15:47:16 CST(-0600)] <mlam> jhung: are you the only one with Win 7?
[15:50:17 CST(-0600)] <jhung> mlam: seems like it.
[15:51:02 CST(-0600)] <mlam> ok, i can test some of the win 7 stuff when i get home
[15:52:00 CST(-0600)] <jhung> fluid-everyone: Since some of us are testing the same component but on different configurations, I have started a child page to compile testing notes specific to a component. Example: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Infusion+1.3+Testing+Notes+-+Inline+Edit
[15:52:30 CST(-0600)] <jhung> The idea is to compile notes in a central place as we test, then file Jiras at the end after testing for that component is complete.
[15:57:28 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> fluid-everyone: Are we planning to commit anythings for FLUID-3881?
[15:57:39 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I have made a patch for commenting unsupported reorderer functions
[15:58:31 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Bosmon, if you could attach the patch to the JIRA, I could review it, and if Justin_o agrees, commit it (I already commented the framework based on the notes you gave me)
[15:59:05 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> but Justin_o might say the commit has to wait till after the release; he's in a meeting right now with colinclark
[16:02:43 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Ok, I have attached a patch
[16:11:02 CST(-0600)] <mlam> Justin_o: I'm heading home to pick up my new phone from the post office before it closes (smile) I'll knock off some of the component testing in Win 7 tonight since not many of us have that OS on their machines
[17:07:57 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Bosmon: I've got a reworked version of your FLUID-3899 patch
[17:08:03 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> would you be willing to look it over very carefully?
[17:08:07 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> All the unit tests run
[17:08:13 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but is there anything else I need to test with?
[17:08:21 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'll check over Uploader and Reorderer carefully as well
[17:08:37 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I am fairly worried that I missed a detail here or there, Bosmon
[17:08:46 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So a "reverse review" is in order
[17:11:52 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Ok, thanks
[17:11:55 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I will look it over
[17:12:15 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Is it on the issue?
[17:15:29 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Bosmon: I'm just attaching it now
[17:16:22 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Bosmon: http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3899
[17:16:24 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It's just amazing how much more responsive this machine is using XP or 2k, even from within a VM
[17:16:36 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Windows 7 is a really disagreeable step backwards in so many ways
[17:16:50 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> ALl that can be said about it is that it's not worse than Vista
[17:17:05 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I can't wait for the days when an entire OS shell will be written in HTML, CSS and JS (smile)
[17:18:08 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I was thinking that I may start a personal project
[17:18:37 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> in which I set up a lightweight Linux kernel and Firefox
[17:18:53 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and then start to play around with a non-Googlized "web operating system"
[17:19:13 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I think combined with the potential for Web-based AT, it could be a remarkable environment
[17:19:28 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> "potential of a Web-based AT," rather
[17:20:49 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> "Ut non turpis banana"
[17:21:41 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> (smile)
[17:22:13 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> So I've "reverse reviewed" your patch, it all looks good
[17:22:26 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> The only difference I find is the presence of two extra test lines at the base of FluidIoC.js
[17:22:40 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I don't know whether this is simply because I never added them to my patch at the right time, or they got lost
[17:22:42 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> jqUnit.assertUndefined("No fetch error", resourceSpecs.objects.fetchError);
[17:22:42 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> jqUnit.assertValue("Request completed", resourceSpecs.objects.completeTime);
[17:22:55 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I have these two extra assertions at line 608 of FluidIoCTests.js
[17:23:50 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> let me take a look
[17:24:04 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> This is in FluidIoCTests.js?
[17:24:05 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Hmm... thinking back, perhaps they weren't in my patch and got added whilst I was on the trail of another issue
[17:24:12 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> But if you think it's ok, perhaps you could add them in
[17:24:20 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> One can never have too many test assertions (tongue)
[17:24:26 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Yes
[17:24:36 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> They don't seem to be in the patch
[17:24:40 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but I will go ahead and add them
[17:25:07 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> wait
[17:25:10 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> these are in my patch
[17:25:30 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yes, at line 608
[17:26:07 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Oh, that's good
[17:26:10 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> You can seem them at lines 118 and 119 of the -c patch
[17:26:11 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Sorry, I must have mixed up my files
[17:26:14 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> "see them"
[17:26:14 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> cool
[17:26:19 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I was comparing the wrong things....
[17:26:21 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ok
[17:26:23 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Ok, that's good then
[17:26:26 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Everything else looks fine
[17:26:50 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> While testing, I believe I've found a bug in the Uploader demo
[17:26:52 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> minor fix
[17:27:00 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I guess we should sneak it in
[17:27:05 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'll file a JIRA and get you to review it
[17:27:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and we'll risk the wrath of the King tomorrow
[17:27:18 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> since it causes the demo to be non-functional
[17:27:25 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ack
[17:27:27 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> maybe not
[17:27:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I should really throw out old working copies (wink)
[17:28:09 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> phew
[17:28:28 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> okay, Bosmon, I'll go ahead and commit the FLUID-3899-c patch
[17:28:36 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> THanks so much for taking care of this, colinclark
[17:28:39 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Sorry it has been so tedious
[17:28:43 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> no worries
[17:29:32 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> James has posted some new drafts for Fluid site redesigns
[17:29:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> they're quite nice
[17:30:55 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> That's cool
[17:31:15 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> We seem to be getting close to closing this release, finally
[17:31:20 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yes
[17:31:20 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It's a shame about deadMan'sBlur
[17:31:35 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Just stacks of review, really
[17:31:36 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Although I am still working on how YURA still can't get a working model under IE8
[17:31:41 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I don't quite know how to schedule Uploader review
[17:31:46 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Finally I've got a new XP VM up in that I will now clone and put IE8 in
[17:31:52 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'll be away for most of tomorrow to squeeze in a little Christmas shopping
[17:32:01 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I worked so much the past too weekends that I haven't had time yet
[17:32:08 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Since my version of IE8 on Win 7 refuses to do any AJAX to the filesystem at all
[17:32:16 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So maybe at about 4 pm tomorrow, EST?
[17:32:20 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Seems good
[17:32:34 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Are you and FISH doing IOC review too?
[17:32:49 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yep
[17:32:53 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'm doing it in pieces
[17:32:58 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but I'll need to do an IoC-wide review
[17:33:28 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Okay, FLUID-3899 is reviewed, tested, committed, resolved, and closed
[17:33:59 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'm going to move on to review your FLUID-3711 now, Bosmon
[17:34:45 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> How is "backwards compatibility for Uploader" doing?
[17:35:28 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It's done
[17:35:39 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I don't know that my unit tests are fully and completely sufficient
[17:35:49 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Is that on the list to be reviewed, or is it part of the mega Uploader review?
[17:35:55 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> You could productively review it in isolation, I think
[17:38:03 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Take a look at my commits at r10392 through 10394 for FLUID-3885 if you'd like to review that on its own, Bosmon
[17:38:39 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> You'll see that ultimately I didn't managed to get an IoC-driven solution in place in time, so I ended up awkwardly wrapping fluid.multiFileUploader() in the compatibility file
[17:39:02 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ModelTransformations.js still isn't quite right, but it does pass enough unit tests to be workable for now
[17:39:39 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Bosmon: The increased dependency on DataBinding.js throughout many components is unfortunate
[17:39:52 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> such as your changes to Reorderer for FLUID-3711
[17:39:57 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Is it something we might address for 1.4?
[17:40:37 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Yes, I think so
[17:41:33 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> You've added priority order for listeners?
[17:41:37 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I had no idea
[17:41:45 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I desperately need this feature in Uploader, at least in the short term
[17:42:10 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Yes, that happened last week I think
[17:42:18 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I wish I had known
[17:42:20 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It was necessary to get the ARIA-labelled reorderer working
[17:42:30 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> You always argued that listener order was a smell
[17:42:35 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Yes, I did
[17:42:37 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but the need does crop up from time to time
[17:42:51 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> But especially for a "preventable" event it has to be a good smell....
[17:43:11 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> That is, as long as we have "preventable" events I think the logical counterpart is that handlers need to be orderable
[17:43:40 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I guess the other answer is simply to say "make more events"
[17:43:42 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I guess, interestingly, the DOM has no analogue
[17:43:47 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> But that seems a bit messy
[17:44:03 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I guess the issue is that we often use events to "DO REAL WORK"
[17:44:23 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> So in this case, the moduleLayout was updating its internal data structures based on listening to the "onMove" event fired by the core reorderer
[17:44:30 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Which is entirely appropriate, I think
[17:44:45 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> The problem here is, that in this case, the moduleLayout is actually the authoritative record of what the "model" of the reorderer actually is
[17:44:52 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but problematic without ordering if other listeners expect the state to have already been updated
[17:44:59 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> right
[17:45:16 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> So if a further party registers for the "onMove" event it's totally unaccceptable for there to be ambiguity as to whether the data structures have been updated or not
[17:45:27 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> And ideally the model is that they are NOT updated
[17:45:36 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Since otherwise, how could an "onMove" actually be "prevented"?
[17:45:48 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yes
[17:45:51 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> it makes sense
[17:45:53 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> So our API has actually been inconsistent up until now
[17:45:59 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> We advertised that certain events were "preventable"
[17:46:05 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> but actually it was functionally impossible to prevent them
[17:47:00 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I guess the "CoaCoa" answer to this kind of thing is a plethora of "onBeforeMove" "onMove", "onAfterMove" etc. type events (tongue)
[17:47:06 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Ah, it's "willMove" isn't it (tongue)
[17:47:10 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> How many of those were there
[17:47:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> CoaCoa?
[17:47:17 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ah
[17:47:20 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> That "Objective C" thing
[17:47:20 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Cocoa
[17:47:37 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> willMove
[17:47:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and didMove
[17:47:39 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yes
[17:48:30 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> The thing about Cocoa is that, inexplicably, these sorts of things aren't actually events
[17:48:45 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> they are "delegate methods," where a particular object has one and only one delegate
[17:48:56 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Which ends up requiring developers to create these "non objects"
[17:49:04 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> which ultimately don't represent anything more than
[17:49:22 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> "Apple made me register a single object to respond to all these virtually unrelated pieces of behaviour"
[17:49:33 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> But since there's only one, there is no ordering issue
[17:49:46 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Right, or rather, only the ordering issue that the user makes for themselves (tongue)
[17:49:53 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Cocoa has events in the form of "notifications," but oddly they aren't used very much for this sort of behaviour
[17:49:57 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Bosmon: exactly
[17:49:59 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> With the "event system" they are then obliged to create for their own use
[17:50:08 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> indeed
[17:50:24 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Do you think we might even deprecate "unicast" events in our own framework?
[17:50:31 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Has a use yet come up for them?
[17:50:32 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I don't see any reason not to
[17:50:35 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> None
[17:50:49 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I guess that is a further task for this release
[17:50:53 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> "Deprecation notices"
[17:50:56 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I don't think we have done this before
[17:51:01 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> So I guess we have no procedure for it?
[17:51:13 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It's analogous to the "unsupported"
[17:51:20 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and can probably fit under that general umbrella
[17:51:22 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Ok
[17:51:27 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I have certainly deprecated things in the past
[17:51:41 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> where I just put a comment explaining what is deprecated, why, and what the alternative is
[17:51:44 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Does there need to be some reflection in the code?
[17:51:45 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and then update the documentation accordingly
[17:51:54 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yes, I think so
[17:51:57 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> For things like this which are actually options to existing things, there is not necessarily a sensible place to put them
[17:52:12 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So, for example, I did this for the hideously named "fluid.progressivelyEnhanceableUploader()" for 1.3
[17:52:13 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> At least, where the comments didn't already fully document the options data structure by themsleves
[17:52:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> // This method has been deprecated as of Infusion 1.3. Use fluid.uploader() instead,
[17:52:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> // which now includes built-in support for progressive enhancement.
[17:53:27 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> (smile)
[17:53:39 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Which is pretty cool (tongue)
[17:54:24 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> it is
[17:54:36 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Cindy has had some trouble with actually using Uploader
[17:54:41 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'm a bit worried
[17:54:46 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> You mean, in grasping how the UI works?
[17:54:50 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but it seems so far like the "usual" problems
[17:54:57 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> No, she's integrating it already into the latest ATutor release
[17:55:02 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It seems to be Flash problems
[17:55:03 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Oh, I see
[17:55:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> SWFUpload is incredibly explosive
[17:55:12 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Ah, that's cool
[17:55:16 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> How about the HTML5 version?
[17:55:18 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> so there's probably some styling problem or something
[17:55:19 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> seems fine
[17:55:27 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> She says she's not seeing files from Firefox 3.6
[17:55:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yet our Java, RSF/SpringMVC-based Gallery example is fine
[17:55:52 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So I fear it could be a subtle thing
[17:56:04 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> or it could just be something unique to ATutor
[17:56:06 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> we'll see tomorrow
[17:56:15 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Our FF3.6 support is incredibly dodgy
[17:56:27 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> so we'll see
[17:58:29 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Bosmon: So your new Reorderer labeller...
[17:58:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It is using "returnedOptions"
[17:58:48 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Something you had hoped to get rid of, no?
[17:59:27 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Minor, non-blocker code review comments...
[17:59:54 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> the labeller's listener for Reorderer's onRefresh event looks an awful lot like something which should actually be a public method
[18:00:09 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Yes
[18:00:24 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I haven't actually considered what to do about returnedOptions
[18:00:31 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I think it should go, yes
[18:00:40 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> But I'm not entirely sure how
[18:00:48 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Which I guess is related to your comment just now (smile)
[18:01:06 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Where there are "standard listeners" for a component which actually embody crucial public functionality...
[18:01:13 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> For a start I guess this listener should be namespaced
[18:01:48 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Haven't really thought carefully about how listeners should interact with IoC, over and above the options infrastructure we already have for them
[18:01:53 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> it seems to me that it's a core piece of the labeller's behaviour
[18:01:55 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> "event boiling" was only a sketch so far
[18:02:02 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> regardless of whether it happens to be wired up as a listener for something else
[18:02:17 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It seems to me that there is room for some awesomeness in regards to events and IoC
[18:02:22 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I guess we actually need to expose the "listeners" structure itself to various kinds of IoC-driven EL inspection
[18:02:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> That seems sensible to me
[18:02:40 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yes
[18:02:48 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I had missed "listeners" off our existing triad of GLOBAL GINGERNESS
[18:03:00 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Which until now included "component options", "invokers", and "components"
[18:03:26 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> ok, yes
[18:03:35 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> A listener should really be just a kind of "subcomponent"
[18:03:52 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> returnedOptions was only ever really used for registering listeners to the parent, declaratively
[18:03:57 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> All other uses should now be taken care of by IoC
[18:04:09 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> OK
[18:04:11 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> This is how it should work
[18:04:24 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> The "listeners" structure should be able to accept IoC-resolved EL keys as its listener keys
[18:04:36 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> So for example, in your OWN listeners block, it should be possible to state:
[18:04:38 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> listeners: {
[18:04:49 CST(-0600)]

<Bosmon> "

Unknown macro: {reorderer}

.onMove": blah

[18:04:58 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> that would be lovely
[18:05:11 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> (smile)
[18:05:25 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> this would also end this crazed idiocy of endlessly passing "events" structures around
[18:05:37 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> that'd be great
[18:05:44 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I mean, until now, we EITHER handed events everywhere, OR we used nuttiness like "returnedOptions"
[18:06:08 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'm not sure it will prevent it altogether
[18:06:14 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Uploader does a lot of event passing
[18:06:16 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I think it will (smile)
[18:06:17 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> some due to design errors
[18:06:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> others due to the fact that while Uploader "defines" the event, subcomponents are really required to fire them
[18:06:37 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Well ok, you can never prevent things in the face of design errors (tongue)
[18:06:40 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yes
[18:06:43 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> ah
[18:06:44 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Well
[18:06:44 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> i'll agree with you there
[18:06:48 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but what about the second case?
[18:06:49 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> let's think of a way round that too
[18:07:12 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> How about a similar notation for a component's "events" structure
[18:07:17 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I think the nature of the issue is that we want users to see events in the top-level component
[18:07:33 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Expanding our original repertoir of "null", "preventable" and the shortly to be destroyed "unicast"
[18:07:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> regardless of who should actually be the one defining them
[18:07:35 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> events: {
[18:07:48 CST(-0600)]

<Bosmon> onMove: "

Unknown macro: {reorderer}


[18:08:01 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> This then guarantees to "transmit" the actual event firer from place to place
[18:08:48 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> that would be great
[18:09:05 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> that's exactly what I'd need
[18:09:16 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> (smile)
[18:09:25 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> 1.4 is going to be such an awesome release (tongue)
[18:09:33 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> When is it scheduled for, again? (tongue)
[18:10:02 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Soonish, I think
[18:10:13 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> But this one we're not going to make the same mistake as for 1.3
[18:10:24 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> which means we'll be a bit more selective about refinements rather than new features
[18:10:30 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> this is probably a perfect candidate
[18:10:51 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Although I imagine you'll also be increasingly focused on things like integrating UI Options with OpenID, etc, too
[18:10:53 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> What mistake do we think we made with 1.3?
[18:11:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Well, I think we waited too long
[18:13:06 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I think we were originally planning to release in October?
[18:14:25 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yes
[18:14:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> When I say waited too long, I mean...
[18:14:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It really was an 8-month process
[18:15:02 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> lots of features accumulated
[18:15:09 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and then a theme emerged for it
[18:15:24 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> it was difficult to, say, balance the stabilization work of things like IoC with the accessibility sprint
[18:15:35 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Yes
[18:15:45 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Although I think it is good that we got both strands broadly under control
[18:15:48 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Bosmon: I've reviewed and closed http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3711
[18:16:19 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Ah, thanks
[18:16:23 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> And pasted some of our CHATT (tongue)
[18:17:24 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yep, it seemed relevant
[18:18:00 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> GREAT.... I've finally got a new XP VM up with IE8 in it.... and can demonstrate JURA's DMB/dismissal issue
[18:18:23 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It seems that even though in IE8, a "focusin" event can be registered globally, for some reason the reported event target is totally wrong
[18:18:39 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> odd
[18:19:43 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Well
[18:20:01 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I think there is more to it... looks like there is an issue with the specific code/implementation
[18:20:04 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I think we can get round it
[18:20:20 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I'm generally pleased with what we've actually delivered in the framework this release
[18:20:39 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> And even if it has some oddities, it generally represents well-tested and moderately reasonable functionality
[18:25:16 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I think it was huge for us to move Uploader and Reorderer over to IoC
[18:25:26 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> it is a good test that this stuff is generally understandable and usably
[18:25:28 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> usable
[18:25:36 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It wasn't easy as the ground was shifting underneath our feet
[18:25:39 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> (smile)
[18:26:03 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Well, it will continue moving I guess at least till the 1.4 release
[18:26:20 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Although hopefully the changes from here could be mostly described as "having new ground"
[18:26:24 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Rather than moving the existing ground
[18:27:21 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> that would be nice
[18:27:22 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> (smile)
[18:33:24 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Okay, Bosmon, http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3771 is gonzo now too.
[18:33:49 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I believe I've just swept away all of the remaining framework reviews
[18:33:56 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> We'll have to do a larger IoC review at some point
[18:34:05 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but honestly I think it would be better done as a code tour
[18:34:27 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> IoC is so new at this point, yet so widely tested, that a comprehensive code review seems less urgent
[18:34:33 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Does that seem reasonable?
[18:36:50 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Sorry, I just got distracted
[18:37:01 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I think I have found the reason for Yura's focus problems
[18:37:13 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> And, worryingly enough, I think it is traceable to some code in our keyboard-a11y plugin
[18:37:27 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> var selElm = selectionContext.selectedElement();
[18:37:28 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> if (selElm) {
[18:37:28 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> selElm.blur();
[18:37:28 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> }
[18:37:45 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> The comment is // FLUID-3590: FF 3.6 and Safari 4.x won't fire blur() when programmatically moving focus.
[18:38:03 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Yes, that seems reasonable
[18:38:03 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> hmm
[18:38:13 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Shall we still have an Uploader review tomorrow?
[18:38:17 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yes
[18:38:20 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> 4 pm EST
[18:38:21 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> 2 pm your time
[18:38:25 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> ok
[18:39:26 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I think the problem with this code on IE is that invoking the blur does synchronously cause a focus event to be generated
[18:39:38 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> In this case, "focusing on the first thing it can lay its hands on"
[18:39:49 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> In this case, the document body (tongue)
[18:40:27 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Oh wow
[18:40:32 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It looks like I actually worked on this issue myself
[18:41:01 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> ....
[18:41:08 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It looks like I am even responsible for this line of code myself (tongue)
[18:42:44 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I guess what this points up is that perhaps deadMan'sBlur is not totally worthless after all
[18:43:03 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> But it might need an upgrade to deal with this kind of issue...
[18:55:16 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Yup
[18:55:19 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> I now understand this issue
[18:55:21 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> LOG: 17:54:20.375: Invoking blur on TR#fluid-id-334.csc-numberPatternChooser-patternRow cs-selecting
[18:55:34 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> LOG: 17:54:20.390: received focusin on BODY#acquisition
[18:55:43 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> The *CAUSE* of the focusin is indeed the blur call
[18:55:46 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> interesting
[18:56:07 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> And since the HANDLER for the blur call hides the entire markup....
[18:56:21 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> By the time the selectable plugin comes to try to select the element, it is gone already
[18:56:26 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Resulting in the following sequence:
[18:56:49 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> LOG: 17:54:31.906: Invoking focus on TR#fluid-id-335.csc-numberPatternChooser-patternRow
[18:57:02 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> LOG: 17:54:32.172: received focusin on BODY#acquisition
[18:58:26 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> So........ I think this is highly interesting
[18:58:31 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> And suggests how DMB could be fixed
[18:58:47 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Assuming we want to continue with our implementation of the selectable plugin
[18:58:57 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> We certainly have to fix one, or the other of them
[18:59:22 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> So.... what should happen is that the DMB timer should ALWAYS be allowed to expire
[18:59:55 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> And rather than invoking cancellation on the FIRST focus event that appears to be non-excluded, it should instead invoke cancellation only if it receives NO focus events which ARE "excluded"
[19:00:53 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> hum wait.... that appears to be exactly how it is implemented (tongue)
[19:04:54 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Okay, I'm going to hit the road
[19:04:58 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> good luck with the debugging
[19:05:06 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> see you around 4 pm EST tomorrow to review Uploader