Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: PF-19
Type: Bug Bug
Status: Open Open
Priority: Major Major
Assignee: Neil Griffin
Reporter: Adrian Burri
Votes: 1
Watchers: 2
Operations

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
PortletFaces

Wrong viewId

Created: 13.Apr 2010 17:14   Updated: 19.Apr 2010 20:01
Return to search
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Time Tracking:
Not Specified

File Attachments: 1. Java Source File DebugPhaseListener.java (0.9 kB) 13.Apr 2010 17:14 - Adrian Burri
2. XML File faces-config.xml (0.7 kB) 13.Apr 2010 17:14 - Adrian Burri
3. Text File jsf-portlet.log (2 kB) 13.Apr 2010 17:14 - Adrian Burri
4. Text File trace.txt (6 kB) 14.Apr 2010 10:14 - Adrian Burri

Environment: Windows XP, Tomcat 6.0.18, Liferay 5.2.3, JSF 2.0.3 (Snapshot 13.04.2010)


 Description  « Hide
I have an application consisting of two views (login.xhtml, tasklist.xhtml). Starting from login.xhtml (marked as 1. in the log), I navigate to tasklist.xhtml (marked as 2. in the log). The tasklist.xhtml displays fine, however whatever action I choose from there, it does not get propagated to the backing bean (i.e. the corresponding action is never called). Instead, I get redirected to the login screen.

Looking at the output from the phase listener (see attachment, it might look familiar ;-)), I suspect that the last four entries before mark 2. have something to do with it. It looks like there is an additional get request involving the wrong viewId.

Adrian Burri added a comment - 14.Apr 2010 10:14
I've tried the same with the example app and with a more detailed output (see trace.txt) - same result

Raphael Drüner added a comment - 19.Apr 2010 20:01
ExternalContextImpl.getRequestPathInfo() is missing a lot of functionality and seems to always redirect me to the initial view. I think the propagation of the correct viewId is not implemented in the Alpha 1 release.

When can we expect another version which will resolve at least this blocker? A snapshot quality release would be ok, but I do not see any activity in the SVN repository since Alpha 1.