[FIX] Scamper-Form Submit-umur ([et][approved])

Doug Way dway at riskmetrics.com
Mon Aug 4 23:07:12 UTC 2003


This fixes a major bug with Scamper, submitting forms with entry fields 
now works.  (tested it myself, and it's been tested by others)  
Actually, this bug is almost certainly the source of some page titles 
getting munged on the Squeak Swiki... take a look at the history of the 
Sandbox page for example.  The titles such as "#21" are the result of 
this bug.

So, the base-image part of this changeset should be approved (HTTPSocket 
class>>httpPostDocument:args:accept:request:), the other part 
(TextInput>>reset) needs to go into the Scamper package.  Unfortunately 
the Scamper package still doesn't have an official maintainer, I'm 
sending another email about that.  For now, perhaps the registrant (Adam 
Spitz) or the original author (Lex) could make the change...

- Doug


Umur at Writeme wrote:

>Thanks for the comments. $? is there because of the method "argString:".
>And that method is being called in many places. We certainly need to
>change that method instead of removing the $? later. 
>
>We need to go through all senders of "argString:". While thinking about
>it, I see many opportunities for refactoring the class HttpSocket.
>Anyway, I did not want to create too many changes before seeing the
>networking rewrite.
>
>Umur
>-----Original Message-----
>From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>[mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of
>goran.krampe at bluefish.se
>Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 11:36 PM
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>Subject: Re: [FIX] Scamper-Form Submit-umur ([sm][cd])
>
>
>"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>  
>
>>Woohoo!
>>
>>More specifically:  :)
>>
>>1. Getting rid of the $? for POST's is certainly desired.  A big "duh"
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>for it being there to begin with.
>>
>>2.The POST not handling redirections is a big deal.  Great work.
>>
>>3. The TextInput fix looks great.
>>
>>
>>I have briefly tested it and it works fine.  That is as high of a 
>>standard as the code we currently have.  :)
>>
>>Incidentally, this kind of fix may well become moot when Michael 
>>Rueger finishes his networking rewrite, correct?  Anyway, it is good 
>>to have this working.
>>    
>>
>
>Definitely good. I will try Scamper on the new SM web UI btw and help
>fixing it so that it works. Btw, the network rewrite has gone into
>3.6alpha. I am not sure Michael has any more outstanding issues in it.
>
>  
>
>>Lex
>>    
>>
>
>regards, Göran
>
>  
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list