You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by ma...@apache.org on 2008/09/18 14:49:59 UTC
svn commit: r696650 - /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Author: markt
Date: Thu Sep 18 05:49:59 2008
New Revision: 696650
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=696650&view=rev
Log:
Update with TCK results - no change with/without patch
Modified:
tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Modified: tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt?rev=696650&r1=696649&r2=696650&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt (original)
+++ tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt Thu Sep 18 05:49:59 2008
@@ -173,6 +173,9 @@
deleted when ported to 6.0.x
+1: markt
0: remm (big patch for a minor issue, so how was this tested ? tck ?)
+ markt: No change in the TCK results with this patch. We have the
+ same EL related failures we have without the patch. I'll
+ look into them as separate issues.
-1:
* Fix https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45447
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r696650 - /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 17:27 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> My questions are trying to understand the timing. Basically whether a)
>> 6.0.18 went out with TCK failures or b) you fixed the failures as part of
>> the 6.0.18 release or c) some change in svn post 6.0.18 caused the
>> failures. It wasn't clear to me which it was.
>
> Not certain about 6.0.18 (I think it should be ok, though), but it's
> most definitely after the latest fix that I used my hack, and it worked.
6.0.18 is OK. The EL tests all pass.
>> Your most recent message makes things clear that it is c). It looks like
>> the new fix for 42565 still has some issues. It's good to know that a new
>> javacc / lookahead 3 should fix it but I would like to understand why if
>> only to avoid breaking EL again with any future change.
>
> I don't really know what I am doing with that EL parser, so no idea
> about optimal parameters.
You know about as much as me then ;)
I still get the problems with the latest javacc so it must be your look
ahead change that fixed it. I do get a couple of look ahead warnings when I
run javacc so I am going to see if I can put in explicit fixes for those
warnings rather than setting the look ahead globally.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r696650 - /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 17:27 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote:
> My questions are trying to understand the timing. Basically whether a)
> 6.0.18 went out with TCK failures or b) you fixed the failures as part of
> the 6.0.18 release or c) some change in svn post 6.0.18 caused the
> failures. It wasn't clear to me which it was.
Not certain about 6.0.18 (I think it should be ok, though), but it's
most definitely after the latest fix that I used my hack, and it worked.
> Your most recent message makes things clear that it is c). It looks like
> the new fix for 42565 still has some issues. It's good to know that a new
> javacc / lookahead 3 should fix it but I would like to understand why if
> only to avoid breaking EL again with any future change.
I don't really know what I am doing with that EL parser, so no idea
about optimal parameters.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r696650 - /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 16:34 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Did you include that in the 6.0.18 release or was it just something you did
>> locally?
>
> I did my hacking only a few days ago. I don't understand you questions.
My questions are trying to understand the timing. Basically whether a)
6.0.18 went out with TCK failures or b) you fixed the failures as part of
the 6.0.18 release or c) some change in svn post 6.0.18 caused the
failures. It wasn't clear to me which it was.
Your most recent message makes things clear that it is c). It looks like
the new fix for 42565 still has some issues. It's good to know that a new
javacc / lookahead 3 should fix it but I would like to understand why if
only to avoid breaking EL again with any future change.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r696650 - /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 16:34 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote:
> Did you include that in the 6.0.18 release or was it just something you did
> locally?
I did my hacking only a few days ago. I don't understand you questions.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r696650 - /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 15:44 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> If you used a newer javacc and/or changed the lookahead for the 6.0.18
>> release that would have resulted in updated .java files. So again, my
>> question is why aren't the updated .java files in svn.
>
> Because as I said, I don't wish to. I have no idea what is the good
> value for that lookahead thing (I did try it due to a warning during
> code generation), I'm just trying to help by pointing out a hack I did.
Did you include that in the 6.0.18 release or was it just something you did
locally?
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r696650 - /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 15:44 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote:
> If you used a newer javacc and/or changed the lookahead for the 6.0.18
> release that would have resulted in updated .java files. So again, my
> question is why aren't the updated .java files in svn.
Because as I said, I don't wish to. I have no idea what is the good
value for that lookahead thing (I did try it due to a warning during
code generation), I'm just trying to help by pointing out a hack I did.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r696650 - /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 14:41 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Remy Maucherat wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 12:49 +0000, markt@apache.org wrote:
>>>> + markt: No change in the TCK results with this patch. We have the
>>>> + same EL related failures we have without the patch. I'll
>>>> + look into them as separate issues.
>>> I fixed these by regenerating with a newer javacc and usage of the
>>> lookahead flag (3 looked sensible). Don't know which one actually fixed
>>> the problem.
>> So how come those changes haven't been checked back in to svn?
>
> The problem looks minor (unless you're specifically interested in the
> TCK at a given point in time). I would have to know what actually fixed
> it, see if it works in Tomcat (it should) and then run the partial TCK
> with just Tomcat (I don't know how to do that :( ). So that's a lot of
> work, and I don't have time for it.
If you used a newer javacc and/or changed the lookahead for the 6.0.18
release that would have resulted in updated .java files. So again, my
question is why aren't the updated .java files in svn.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r696650 - /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 14:41 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote:
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 12:49 +0000, markt@apache.org wrote:
> >> + markt: No change in the TCK results with this patch. We have the
> >> + same EL related failures we have without the patch. I'll
> >> + look into them as separate issues.
> >
> > I fixed these by regenerating with a newer javacc and usage of the
> > lookahead flag (3 looked sensible). Don't know which one actually fixed
> > the problem.
>
> So how come those changes haven't been checked back in to svn?
The problem looks minor (unless you're specifically interested in the
TCK at a given point in time). I would have to know what actually fixed
it, see if it works in Tomcat (it should) and then run the partial TCK
with just Tomcat (I don't know how to do that :( ). So that's a lot of
work, and I don't have time for it.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r696650 - /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 12:49 +0000, markt@apache.org wrote:
>> + markt: No change in the TCK results with this patch. We have the
>> + same EL related failures we have without the patch. I'll
>> + look into them as separate issues.
>
> I fixed these by regenerating with a newer javacc and usage of the
> lookahead flag (3 looked sensible). Don't know which one actually fixed
> the problem.
So how come those changes haven't been checked back in to svn?
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r696650 - /tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/STATUS.txt
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 12:49 +0000, markt@apache.org wrote:
> + markt: No change in the TCK results with this patch. We have the
> + same EL related failures we have without the patch. I'll
> + look into them as separate issues.
I fixed these by regenerating with a newer javacc and usage of the
lookahead flag (3 looked sensible). Don't know which one actually fixed
the problem.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org