fluid-work IRC Logs-2011-01-21

[08:09:15 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> mlam, colinclark: are you guys thinking of fixing this issue http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3875
[08:09:17 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> for 1.3.1
[08:09:58 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I guess at this point, this one really should be split off into separate JIRAs
[08:10:07 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> One for testing with special characters
[08:10:19 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> another for using FileReader API instead of getAsBinary()
[08:10:27 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> the rest are fixed, so this isn't as meaningful as it once was
[08:10:40 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and no, I don't feel like these need to get fixed for 1.3.1
[08:10:45 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'll file some new ones and close it
[08:10:58 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> colinclark: thanks
[08:11:01 CST(-0600)] <mlam> Ah, ok, thanks colinclark
[08:11:18 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> i also noticed that FLUID-3321: All demos that use arrow key navigation should include the application role to enable screen readers to swtich cursor modes automatically
[08:11:39 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> considering the problems that Bosmon2 had with trying to add this to the reorderer, i think maybe we should hold off on it
[08:12:01 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> colinclark: any thoughts ?
[08:12:18 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> That seems reasonable to me
[08:13:32 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> Thanks.. just a quick overview of what i'm thinking for the top five... i'll send out an e-mail to the list in a bit.. but i'm going to add all the uploader issues.. except for the bonus one you had
[08:13:32 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Perhaps it actually makes sense to add this test for non-ASCII characters to the QA plan for Uploader
[08:13:39 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'll file a bug for that (smile)
[08:13:47 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> that's fine, justin_o
[08:14:08 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> colinclark: is that non-ascii characters in the file name
[08:14:11 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> ?
[08:14:14 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yes
[08:14:19 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> okay.. that makes sense
[08:15:21 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> colinclark: also for the top 5, i'm going to pick and choose 5 total from the other suggestions for 1.3.1
[08:15:40 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ok
[08:16:57 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> hey justin_o is this one pretty much done? http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-2170
[08:17:41 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> the new upcoming fss features will have to be added, but should prob make a new jira for that when the time comes
[08:19:42 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> heidi_: I think that makes sense.. i added a comment with a link to where the tests can be seen... if you think that the jira can be closed, go for it
[08:20:46 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i'll close it and yeah, add more jiras when the time comes to add the new feat
[08:20:52 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> thanks
[08:21:41 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> justin_o: I've filed this one: http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-4040 If you think we can find someone to update the QA plan, feel free to file it for 1.3.1.
[08:22:12 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> We also need to schedule some time for the Reorderer test plans to catch the tabbing issue that Layout Reorderer is currently suffering from
[08:22:28 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> colinclark: thanks.. i might just do that... it will probably only take a minute to update
[08:22:35 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ok
[08:22:40 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> colinclark: already did it the reorderer one
[08:22:58 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> i had forgot to talk to jonathan about it, so i just did it yesterday morning
[08:23:32 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> wow, thanks
[08:23:33 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> you rule
[08:24:05 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Okay, so I'm going to move on to finishing reviewing Heidi's big and awesome patch from yesterday
[08:24:09 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and then mlam's new patch
[08:24:23 CST(-0600)] <mlam> thanks colinclark
[08:25:14 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> colinclark doesn't look like fl-widget is used anywhere - it seems like a pretty generic blob of styling. what was jacob hoping for this? something for sakai in particular?
[08:25:29 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> no
[08:25:48 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> As athena mentioned yesterday, the widget styles are used at least partially by uPortal
[08:26:06 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> At some point, the widgets were also used actively in Sakai 3--they probably still are
[08:26:33 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> alright i'll dig around, thanks
[08:27:01 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> The idea of the widget styles was to have good out-of-the-box styles for little "boxes" on a page--things you might call modules or gadgets or widgets or portlets or window or whatever
[08:27:03 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> does that make sense?
[08:27:31 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> so this is our general fss portlet styling
[08:27:59 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> seems more like a widget container than a widget itself?
[08:28:39 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Yeah, if you're talking about .fl-widget specifically, that's exactly what it is
[08:28:48 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I assume it's used largely for scoping other styles
[08:29:10 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> heidi_: In your patch, did you create a dependency declaration file for the scrollTo plugin?
[08:29:24 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> no - how do you do that?
[08:30:20 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> You just make one
[08:30:32 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> oh oh, the json file
[08:30:37 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yes, that
[08:30:41 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i can make one
[08:31:28 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> it's cool, i'll do it while I'm reviewing your patch
[08:31:54 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I just wondered because directory adds don't really work in patches, so I thought it might have gotten lost
[08:33:04 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> cool, thanks
[08:42:02 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So as part of FLUID-3837, heidi_, you're cooking up a change to the FSS demo that will show the new scrollable table styles, right?
[08:43:21 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> added a new jira for that, let me find it..
[08:43:25 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Ah, cool
[08:43:37 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Did it get included on justin_o's list for 1.3.1?
[08:43:51 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> colinclark http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-4037
[08:44:13 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> colinclark: no i didn't see that one
[08:44:17 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> justin_o: Your opinion?
[08:44:29 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Seems to me if we're adding something new, we need to have a demo for it, at least
[08:44:33 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> What do you think?
[08:45:16 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> colinclark: i think that makes sense... i think we can add it to 1.3.1
[08:45:20 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> thanks
[08:45:23 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> it's coming out of the uploader work anyways
[08:45:26 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yep
[08:45:46 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> i changed the fix for version in jira
[08:45:51 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> thanks
[08:45:56 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> cool
[08:45:59 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> justin_o: I'm thinking of doing something...
[08:46:41 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> in order to make scrollability optional (for which there is a long-standing bug, and now we're actually hard-baking table-ism into the Uploader code), I think I'll need to make heidi_'s new scrollableTable() function a full-fledged little component
[08:46:48 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> To be clear, it already is a little component
[08:47:04 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but it's a goofy one--it returns a jQuery instance, rather than the component's own instance
[08:47:16 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> which, when wired up to IoC so that it can be made configurable, will be a bit strange
[08:47:48 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> anyway, it occurs to me that what I can do is to take the shell of our Scroller component, and just replace all its internals with the scrollTo plugin
[08:47:55 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> This'll be a bit of an API change, though
[08:48:10 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but I guess we've already argued that the Scroller was essentially not a "real component"
[08:48:19 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> colinclark: yes.. i think that's correct
[08:48:39 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I may not need to do it
[08:48:42 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'll take a look
[08:48:45 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> okay...
[08:48:55 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> are you planning on promoting it to "real component" status?
[08:49:20 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Anyway, whatever this commit contains, it'll either be 1) the complete removal of the Scroller component or 2) turning it into a very light wrapper around the scrollTo plugin
[08:49:26 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> justin_o: Well, in a sense, yes
[08:49:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> We have introduced a new little component into FluidView.js
[08:49:41 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> scrollableTable()
[08:49:42 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i think it's a useful little thing on its own
[08:49:51 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> so by inclusion there, it's pretty well first-class (smile)
[08:50:01 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> another thing occurs to me in that case, heidi_
[08:50:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> we need some unit tests for that behaviour
[08:50:36 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> easy enough to write, I think, since we don't need to test the scrollTo plugin's behaviour--just our wrapping
[08:50:50 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> testing that the wrapper divs were created ?
[08:50:52 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> ya
[08:51:48 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> We should cover all the little things we ran into while writing it
[08:52:00 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Like "is our scrollable element actually in the DOM?"
[08:52:06 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Do you feel comfortable writing that now, heidi_?
[08:52:27 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> sure, it would be an uploader test for now? or its own thing?
[08:52:29 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I can imagine the King might smite us if we commit a new framework-level feature without accompanying unit tests
[08:52:39 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> No, it would be added to the FluidView tests
[08:52:42 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> colinclark: i'm wondering if adding new components fits into this release version number. Since it is a bug fix release
[08:52:43 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Fluid+Versioning+Scheme
[08:52:49 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> ah
[08:53:01 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> justin_o: I guess this stretches our definition of a "component"
[08:53:04 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Lots of things are a component
[08:53:05 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> although i think are definition is loose enough that it should be okay, but just thought i should bring it up
[08:53:19 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> this isn't a component in the tradition of, say, Inline Edit or even the progress bar
[08:53:30 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It's in that family of stuff we're seeing emerging in FluidView.js
[08:53:35 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> little helpful tools
[08:53:53 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> okay... so not something we'll feature on it's own in the demo portal?
[08:54:00 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I would argue it fits into the category of "May include small new features"
[08:54:01 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Yes, exactly
[08:54:17 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> might be nice to feature these little helpers on the demo someday
[08:54:22 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> ?
[08:54:31 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> okay.. i'm fine with that... just wanted to make sure we talked about it (smile)
[08:54:53 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> heidi_: I think we're going to rework and demos and documentation over the next few releases
[08:55:08 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> so you may want to file a jira about that and schedule it for 1.5
[08:55:25 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> sure, will do
[08:55:29 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> heidi_: thanks
[08:55:45 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I think it probably fits into the category of "cool snippets of code"
[08:55:55 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Like, I'm thinking of the ARIA labeller component as another example
[08:56:00 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> in itself, it makes a pretty unimpressive demo
[08:56:09 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but it fits into a category of incredibly helpful little things
[08:56:32 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I mean, that ARIA labeller component makes live regions and aria-labels so super easy
[08:56:47 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Similarly, our scrollable table, in itself, doesn't do much of anything
[08:56:52 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but it sure saves a few lines of code and markup
[08:57:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> But if nothing else, we should definitely feature the scrolling styles in the FSS demos, since those demos are really more inclined towards "little helpful things"
[08:57:47 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> which I guess is exactly what the FSS is, in large part
[08:57:56 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> tho fss isn't code
[08:58:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> nope
[08:58:45 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but what's the difference?
[08:59:44 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i suppose if you injected those extra divs yourself, you could use fss the same way
[09:00:05 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yep, exactly
[09:00:09 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> that's what the FSS demo will show
[09:00:44 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Honestly, as much as anything, I think the FSS demo will just give us another way to test those styles to make sure they're actually useful to people
[09:01:29 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yeah the fss demo needs some love
[09:02:15 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> rather than demo'ing a stylesheet, it'd be nice to demo the stylesheet being used in 'real world' ways
[09:05:26 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> colinclark so i'll add to FluidViewTests.js and attach it to that jira
[09:05:32 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> thanks so much
[09:05:33 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> that's great
[09:05:42 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> heidi_: +1 on your previous comment, too
[09:05:50 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> cool
[09:35:14 CST(-0600)] <michelled> justin_o: do the manual tests get run as part of QA?
[09:35:36 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> They should be as part of the checked all shipped examples
[09:35:43 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> but they could have been missed
[09:36:27 CST(-0600)] <michelled> I think we should make a separate task for them so that they get run. If we think they are worth having around then they are worth running as part of QA
[09:36:34 CST(-0600)] <jessm> justin_o: there were a few jiras i was hoping you'd have a look at – progress-specific ones
[09:37:21 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> michelled: yep... i think we should be able to reduce some of them to unit tests though
[09:37:28 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> jessm: sure, which ones are they
[09:37:37 CST(-0600)] <michelled> justin_o: ya, I'm looking at that now
[09:37:39 CST(-0600)] <jessm> justin_o: http://issues.fluidproject.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&amp;jqlQuery=project+%3D+FLUID+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+component+%3D+Wiki+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC&amp;mode=hide
[09:39:05 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> jessm: those ones still need to be done. I'm not sure when we'll get to them though
[09:39:46 CST(-0600)] <jessm> justin_o: those were my thoughts as well
[09:40:00 CST(-0600)] <jessm> so, let's leave them and maybe i'll change them to 1.5?
[09:40:09 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> jessm: okay
[09:40:18 CST(-0600)] <jessm> justin_o: ok, thanks
[09:59:06 CST(-0600)] <jessm> anastasiac: is FLUID-827 one we should keep?
[09:59:38 CST(-0600)] <jessm> justin_o: i found this JIRA cleanup to be cathartic – very glad to have done it
[10:00:12 CST(-0600)] <jessm> l left the Design Framework in there as placeholder – it might be useful again at some point so I didn't want to lose all of that work
[10:00:58 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> jessm: glad you are enjoying the cleanup (smile)
[10:01:06 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> and yah, i guess it makes sense to leave it there
[10:01:18 CST(-0600)] <jessm> justin_o: for your next update email, I'm done with Wiki and Website now too
[10:01:34 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> jessm: great thanks
[10:02:43 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> jessm, probably we should keep FLUID-827 - it actually is something we should do. And also, once we move to github, the 'tagging' part of the process will need to be rewritten. justin_o, what do you think? keep the JIRA?
[10:04:11 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> anastasiac: i guess that makes sense.. the release process page is a bit dense at the moment...
[10:04:26 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> and we will have to update for the move to git
[10:06:07 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> hey mlam81 would you have some time to help me with my unit test? i think i'm close but missing something
[10:06:27 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> sure, what's up?
[10:06:35 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> would you prefer to send me a patch?
[10:06:40 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> or maybe a pastebin link?
[10:06:48 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yeah i'll pastebin ya, sec
[10:07:01 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> ok
[10:08:19 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> mlam81 actually ill ping you after stand up ...is that cool?
[10:08:25 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i'm gonna try somethin
[10:08:27 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> yah, that's fine
[10:08:30 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> thanks
[10:08:31 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> just lemme know (smile)
[10:08:33 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> np
[10:28:17 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> mlam81 all passing except last test: http://pastebin.com/GGu13b05
[10:30:04 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> ok, i'll check it out
[10:42:52 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> < ------- rejected at stand up (sad)
[10:43:11 CST(-0600)] <michelled> we were there for you mlam81!
[10:43:18 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> haha
[10:48:17 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> oops!
[10:48:20 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> heidi_: so you are getting the proper selector in return in your test
[10:48:38 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i'm wondering if the equals thing isn't the right one to use?
[10:48:51 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> oops did i miss standup
[10:49:33 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> mlam81 it is the proper one
[10:50:17 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> can you send me a patch instead?
[10:50:21 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yep
[10:51:17 CST(-0600)] <jessm> justin_o: are you assembling the troops for work on the TOP 6?
[10:51:27 CST(-0600)] <jessm> justin_o: yes, re: standup
[10:52:07 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> jessm: sorry about standup... i'm trying to get the svn directory moves all mapped out.. and totally lost track of time
[10:52:43 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> as for troops.. golam is looking into one of them... i think that's the only troop member i have assembled at the moment... i think uploader work has most others busy right now
[10:55:51 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> heidi_: what's the JIRA number so that i can grab the rest of the scroller patches?
[10:56:10 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> mike i just emailed you a patch w/ the ness pieces
[10:56:39 CST(-0600)] <mlam81> ok, thanks (smile)
[11:05:42 CST(-0600)] <mlam> heidi_: can you log onto skype?
[11:05:53 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yep, sec!
[11:08:06 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> jessm, justin_o: Should we talk 1.3.1 at some point this afternoon?
[11:08:22 CST(-0600)] <jessm> colinclark: yep
[11:08:27 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> colinclark, jessm: sure what time is good for you
[11:08:33 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> i'm free now
[11:08:46 CST(-0600)] <jessm> me too
[11:09:01 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ok, let me switch wires and we'll be all set to chat
[11:09:22 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> okay
[11:15:51 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> colinclark unit test for scrollable table wrappers on jira
[11:15:57 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> awesome!
[11:17:08 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> colinclark let me know if it covers the bases ok!
[11:42:28 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> jessm not sure if this is something we'd want to submit to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-deW7sU-Ue4
[11:47:00 CST(-0600)] <jessm> heidi_: JT sent an email about this – i think i'm on the hook for drafting something (smile)
[11:47:02 CST(-0600)] <jessm> thanks for sending
[11:48:35 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> cool
[12:15:54 CST(-0600)] <jhung> fluid-everyone: I sent out an email earlier regarding a new Builder design. Please take a look and give your thoughts
[12:25:29 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> jhung: for your wireframes, do you only see the warning message after you press download?
[12:26:54 CST(-0600)] <jhung> justin_o: No the warnings appear the moment a dependent is de-selected.
[12:27:16 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> jhung: okay.. thanks
[12:39:02 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> justin_o, i think all of the keyboard-a11y issues in JIRA have been reviewed (finally)
[12:43:27 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> anastasiac: thanks
[13:18:35 CST(-0600)] <michelled> fluid-everyone: I need a little help with figuring out what to do with some of the manual tests
[13:18:52 CST(-0600)] <michelled> anastasiac: I think some of the manual tests are being used as simple examples
[13:19:40 CST(-0600)] <michelled> in particular, I'm wondering about the 'bound-textarea', 'data-binding' and 'renderer-component-types' examples
[13:19:55 CST(-0600)] * anastasiac looks
[13:22:33 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> ok, thoughts (not necessarily actual suggestions yet): render-component-types was something I created as part of my learning of the renderer. Should probably be in the sandbox
[13:22:55 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> data-binding was (I think) something I put together to illustrate a problem
[13:23:11 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> bound-textarea might also have been something I put together to illustrate a problem
[13:23:28 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> bound-textarea seems to work just fine, and so I suspect we can just get rid of it
[13:24:38 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> data-binding does seem to still illustrate a problem, so we should figure out what that problem is, file a JIRA if there is none, convert the manual test file to a unit test if possible, and if not possible, then document in the file just what the existence of the file is for (e.g. the JIRA, etc). and the JIRA should refer to the file, so once it's resolved we could consider removing it
[13:24:44 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> michelled: ^
[13:25:07 CST(-0600)] <michelled> anastasiac: what problem is it showing?
[13:25:34 CST(-0600)] <michelled> anastasiac: I wonder if renderer-component-types is the sort of examples that belong in the API docs
[13:25:39 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> when you programmatically modify an input field that is bound to a model, the model doesn't get updated
[13:25:46 CST(-0600)] <michelled> out of context super simple examples of how to use the renderer
[13:26:13 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> michelled, renderer-component-types could likely be a starting point for putting together examples for the docs, yes, definitely
[13:26:26 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> but I still think it should go somewhere else for now
[13:27:20 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> the data-binding file should probably be double-checked: it's possible it's expecting behaviour that isn't correct, or something's not set up right, and that's why it's not behaving as I expected it to
[13:30:26 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> anastasiac: When you make a change to a data bound component, you need to explicitly make a call to "change"
[13:30:38 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> It's impossible to detect an "event" which just consists of a change to its markup using "val"
[13:31:14 CST(-0600)] <michelled> the difference between the data-binding example and the bound-textarea example is the use of a change applier
[13:32:06 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> Bosmon2, hm... I just tried adding a call to change(), and it still didn't update
[13:32:53 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> Well, all the same, I'm not sure why this is a manual test case rather than a unit test
[13:32:59 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> If it is intended to illustrate broken behaviour
[13:33:13 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> as I said above, if it does reflect a bug, it should be converted to a unit test
[13:33:31 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> and I take back what I said: change() does work
[13:33:34 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> so it's not a bug
[13:33:37 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> so we should just delete it
[13:33:42 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> michelled: ^
[13:34:06 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> I add a call to "change" and it works for me
[13:34:13 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> ok, cool
[13:34:44 CST(-0600)] <michelled> Bosmon2, justin_o: given that DataBinding.js has unit tests and the two examples only show a basic use of the databinding functionality, I'm going to delete them as anastasiac suggested. that ok with you?
[13:37:57 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> That seems fine
[13:38:10 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> michelled: sorry, just finished catching up... i think that's fine
[13:43:17 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> I'm just noticing that a lot of our tests in Fluid.js are faulty
[13:43:22 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> In particular, the ones relating to fluid.container
[13:43:28 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> I think that we have been misreading them for a while
[13:43:53 CST(-0600)] <michelled> what's wrong with them?
[13:44:46 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> So.... the problem is.... that the exception, if it is caused, is actually caused by the absence of the function "jqunit.ok"
[13:44:50 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> Which I guess hasn't existed for a while
[13:45:05 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> In fact, the last of them is NOT causing an exception as the purpose of the test seems to be to test
[13:45:29 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> But the exception IS caused by the attempt to assert that an exception has NOT occured by calling jqunit.ok (tongue)
[13:45:43 CST(-0600)] <mlam> colinclark: you have a minute to chat about the error handling in the uploader?
[13:45:48 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> So they all appear to "pass" but for an invalid reason
[13:45:55 CST(-0600)] <mlam> rather a few minutes.
[13:45:56 CST(-0600)] <michelled> (sad)
[13:46:14 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> These tests would have been better written with a call to "expect"
[13:47:09 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> I will fix them up
[13:50:17 CST(-0600)] <michelled> thx
[13:52:56 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> jameswy this a 1.5 thang? http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3808
[13:53:22 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> or 1.4
[13:54:58 CST(-0600)] <michelled> anastasiac, justin_o: I'm going to turn both the versioning and the dynamic reorderer manual tests into unit tests. I don't think they serve any other purpose.
[13:55:36 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> michelled, sounds good - it would be good to get rid of the manual tests!
[13:55:51 CST(-0600)] <justin_o> michelled: thanks
[13:56:04 CST(-0600)] <michelled> anastasiac: it looks to me like the renderer component types manual test has a couple things in it that aren't covered in the unit tests. I'm going to try to write some unit tests to cover these before moving the manual test to the sandbox
[13:56:06 CST(-0600)] <michelled> np
[13:56:30 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> michelled, sure, go for it
[13:59:36 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> heidi_: It's an ongoing thing.
[13:59:49 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> heidi_: er, sorry, misread that jira.
[14:00:05 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> heidi_: It's an unscheduled thing, but probably fits within the style suggest, which is an ongoing thing
[14:00:36 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> jameswy interpreting it as the actual creating of the new infusion-look theme - is that right?
[14:00:58 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> and applying it to all components... but maybe that's a extra jira
[14:01:06 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> heidi_: Pretty much.
[14:02:02 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> jameswy do you think that'd be possible to do for 1.4? it's sort of a biggie and prob links to all the website redesigns
[14:02:13 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> heidi_: Not going to happen by 1.4
[14:02:52 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> jameswy okay i'll change the fix version
[14:02:53 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> thanks
[14:03:01 CST(-0600)] <jameswy> heidi_: cools, thanks!
[14:13:05 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> michelled: I fixed up the bad test cases for fluid.container
[14:13:18 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> Also as a side-effect we have a new framework utility, fluid.isDOMNode()
[14:13:51 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> It's sort of moderately effective, although not universally powerful (tongue)
[15:52:28 CST(-0600)] <michelled> colinclark, anastasiac: there is an InlineEdit manual test that I'm thinking of deleting. I has a couple things in it not covered in the unit tests so I'll write those tests first. the one thing I'm not sure about is why it was two sets of multiple inline edits. They appear to be created in the same way - are they supposed to show a bug?
[15:54:49 CST(-0600)] <michelled> there is a bug in the manual test itself - a trailing comma
[15:56:51 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> hmm
[15:56:54 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I don't really know
[15:57:00 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> lemme check real quick
[15:57:28 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> michelled, regarding the duplicated multiple inline edits: I suspect I was trying to double-check that neither of the sets included fields from the other set
[15:57:36 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> since they share the flc-inlineEditable class
[15:57:47 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> containment
[15:57:54 CST(-0600)] <michelled> ah, ok thanks