[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
[cu-dev] Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1
|
- From: Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 11:15:58 -0700
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oracle.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=oracle.com; dkim=pass header.d=oracle.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=wVS3znjtKUZzNXPSEOBBFcpxJpk0vcqkmjDR9FTBenk=; b=AiOeh8r+wurqpSvzm0NpOp+hlXA8LDYRMnr7VfC/OVXazwSnUsLl/RaR1W5YpeVnNAnEZvlJq0YnHeweaqNS200fWXQSIrobntfl9+IoFbhlUfGQM/hg3fodEapfUUD3Mq4d25kUq4d/SsOM3yEDxTECn9WR49w14MBw6Gq7IThBiVt3u4YcKXinPaTEJhbiGNWQjEUBfVMG2tviulRQVkFy3G27giSLgBsCPgTOCIhDRzCuvjoP73mjR6vLQaYxQA7i9Rz6fgZAub+PEOA2A+t4q4E1kC2YUUcGUQM39EZu2ZFW7uwGmmrMzw6F1GXYvl8TTYJGXZ657Pk5xgLw0w==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=PMSARCLiP6edS2ieIU3l0VdlzGFnXFiUwwprBYKd5o8URTyglGfY6lP5hawP1KgHrvhs3wDw/L2tXgKRHCNnVGoa7wiXHotOsQn8McrpM7sBYhlzO9oUY/fvOZm+UiZ7/0mMX7V0dWnZHxPdOVNz1EK9iXBZN23ly39Bbe1IkdI8BesHZS/DTLHRBGYdjsoGktlJ/EV2otJxgLQRtJeae/SvUEvH/NEXvD9kpqhUo+Kju2K3+XeSFoziP6EUvsclA7G3+tEM3btBjoQL9xmZdcyc694xiaBOJh9R/5HpatUangnBLPD3DCB+/fibxSEO1k0KV2IjC+1ACg5SOfbX/w==
- Delivered-to: cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
- List-archive: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/private/cu-dev/>
- List-help: <mailto:cu-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
- List-subscribe: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev>, <mailto:cu-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/options/cu-dev>, <mailto:cu-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Hi there,
First off, I'm very grateful that you have delivered all the
material needed for release review of this specification version.
Dmitry and I are going to be reviewing the materials you have put
together for release review. As we have in the past, we will be
using a couple of longer checklists to ensure that all the
materials are ready to go and there aren't any SNAFUs during the
ballot. I have pasted the checklist into the PR and I'll be
following up if we find any issues.
Here is a short-list of issues I'd like to get your feedback on.
My
PR review also contains these details.
TCK
- Please revise the TCK license to EFTL v1.1. This refers
explicitly to Eclipse Foundation AISBL
- License included in the TCK zip -- /LICENSE
- License in the TCK reference guide. -- since this just
references by link, the only thing incorrect is that it says
'v 1.0' -- you might consider just dropping the version
(though I wouldn't expect this to change again but who knows.)
- Note, I recommend this be addressed prior to the addressing
the following point
SHA Sums for the TCK -- this seems to be a challenge for all of
the specifications and I hope that we can simplify this in the
future. The TCK that is to be referenced for release must be the
exact TCK that will be posted with the final artifacts. The only
SHA Sum we track is for the full distribution TCK (includes the
tests, the documentation, and any ancillary artifacts). When TCKs
provide subset JAR files (e.g. a binary TCK JAR), that must have
the same SHA as the same JAR in the distribution. If this does not
hold true, we have no way of accurately tracking that the vendor
actually used the TCK that is referenced from the Specification
Summary Page. I have noted the following SHA-256 Sums (note they
all differ):
- TCK SHA sum referenced in Open
Liberty CCR (concurrency-tck-3.1.0.zip)
--
7b79bba4167530eb899fecb225e597346c3957f37b3b05bd825d7ab1d58512bd
- TCK SHA sum referenced in Spec. PR (jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-tck-dist-3.1.0-dist.zip)
--
8cb7b51ecb013c7880f0d6b2371c3e8a18cc8a1f1f73a5e3196ceee9922a7063
- SHA Sum of contained file
(jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-tck-3.1.0.jar) --
9c16f858b19da7041125b268dd0f8c80105cd02dd3cca9c87b3abf8b81988a65
- TCK SHA sum in PR/Alternate
(jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-tck-3.1.0.jar) --
9c16f858b19da7041125b268dd0f8c80105cd02dd3cca9c87b3abf8b81988a65
The TCK artifacts in the PR seem consistent. However, the TCK
used by OpenLiberty doesn't seem to match. Could you please
investigate this with your contact from OpenLiberty and correct
the record and/or the test target? While the Spec. committee would
prefer to only track the main distribution TCK (in this case
tck-dist-3.1.0), we will accept the sub-component SHA, so long as
it matches the SHA in the distribution TCK.
It seems there is something different in the Staged TCK.
Remember, even if you just rebuild the TCK, the SHA sums will
differ.
- Please confirm the test count for OpenLiberty is as expected.
The result lists skipped tests and the count total differs from
the 'expected output' of the TCK User Guide (OpenLiberty reports
295 while the UG suggests 268. Both have the same number of
skipped tests -- in an ideal world, the initial CCR and the UG
wouldn't have skipped tests but that's not a requirement).
Spec landing page (_index.md):
- Please revise the landing page to reflect that OpenLiberty
24.0.0.6-beta is the initial CI. (the text suggests there might
be another CI and I don't see another 3.1 CCR in the concurrency
spec. issue list.)
- Please confirm that you are happy with the summary/change text
content. To my read, it still has a bit of 'we could do this, or
these bugs might be fixed). I'd recommend, for example, you pick
a few issues that you think highlight the work accomplished. If
you have a release tag, milestone or other change tracking
document, you may refer to that as well (some document that
lists all the changes).
Specification license text need to be updated everywhere it
appears (in the Specifications and in JavaDocs) to reference Specification
License 1.1 (this has explicit reference to Eclipse
Foundation AISBL). Please revise each of the following:
- Specification PDF -- license text
- Specification HTML -- license text
- JavaDocs -- URL to license in Spec. git repository. You should
update the license in the javadoc folder )y and leave the link
in the JavaDocs alone or, you could revise the link in the
Javadocs to point at the primary specification location (here).
Thank you!
-- Ed Bratt