On 11/10/14, 1:41 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> Looks like the issue was case-mismatch in the Ant script. The Squiggly >> examples now work on the CI server. > >Looks like the case change you suggested for one of the Squiggly RCs >broke this. Very odd that it compiles but is unable to find the code at >runtime that's probably a bug in the compiler / ant task. It probably >worked here as I had testing the examples on Squiggly RCs and still had >the old named library hanging about. I don;t see the odd positioning >locally - may be a timing issue due to loading the content from a web >server vs from a web server locally? Please post a link to a screenshot of a properly sized and positioned third party content that includes the browser’s address bar with http:// in it, or add in some additional text output that displays the sandbox type and url of the main SWF. That will help verify you are running the content under sandboxed conditions, or maybe there isn’t agreement that what rest of us see is undesirable. > >> I am now satisfied with the source packages and its results in the >>release >> branch. > >What checks have you done on the source release? I ran the approval script. To run it against the nightly, get the version in the develop branch, copy it into an empty folder, and run: Ant -e -f ApproveTDF.xml -Dno.asc -Drelease.version=1.2 -Alex
