[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [cu-dev] [External] : Re: : Re: Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1
|
- From: Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 16:57:42 -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=NaHUSYIfNwFg16CBNz6CVK2Cyi7NhYmSyxGXkL8yikM=; b=bHSQ2okReR8XaT7nLyTtqn+53BC6zVgUQXo3rMMEFmH/wC/DVh40+XriukTXQtvCm0AAts25HUkxLcre5K4XraYpNPwoBrX+orQXOtXODJgB/rpsuSDZo6brp0bJbpjZzzPBcCDQMzbcwXMP7kFs2C0jr71rYrB+djD50YxxefoPbCulTGaJ0m61i8jtN3gESAbuXwka/s9mj8k6Z8eA0yjGXBgiR67DE0Axc0NHh7pUQ+RN/h2ajSelZD+yn9P89XWUIWxPJpzOIHQkwcayK+p6tosT3Spa4dTz3DSSeucbyPR1WdeYvazt2RPAen114RLKkMcc4JuqiTpQGYrnEQ==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=XOxheIN0UcIXlogwyLKifd1MkkwXiv4mo2wYw9TYTR/3qIlk0XrnZrEeurH8IXsvOuOBo3HvOTr466ad75VmSbjAoVZrF0aAYdEBI3i5pMyNeNQWb3VgWO2OjOp7tfAguqjHYJyDCAaGXrX/1W0HMV/cp6i1Mp8pWThSvSxRcprxH0091tUXZSmIaK0cb6PVuAfpaihKU37LJ+YKdFBM/82Grfv+4q+ukUr+s68IIr3nu4MLGPptiZg0Zz3Z7clltc47fN9dPEqgycSCRDeVV4wtEBV3ECPfxxD+wbw8LPgVthaBjPk0VV+GPBaRjtrfNDiqLtfGyfHTNLpNtEtUcA==
- 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,
It does not appear that the TCK license that is included in the
TCK itself was updated to the 1.1 version. I am checking to see if
we can let that go. Once I get confirmation of that I'll let you
know if we can proceed or if we have to turn the crank again.
Hopefully we can just proceed and I can just file an issue to fix
that in the next TCK update (micro or higher).
If I by chance, I'm mistaken about the license contained in the
TCK, please let me know.
Thanks,
-- Ed
On 5/21/2024 8:36 AM, Ed Bratt via
cu-dev wrote:
Sorry, the thread confused me. I will check the material and if
everything check s out, I will start the ballot.
Thank you!
-- Ed
On 5/21/2024 8:25 AM, Ed Bratt via
cu-dev wrote:
Hi,
Once the TCK results are available and the Spec. Committer
team has reviewed and is satisfied that the results are
accurate, let me know. I should be able to start the ballot
quickly.
Thank you,
-- Ed
On 5/21/2024 7:11 AM, Nathan Rauh
via cu-dev wrote:
Oops –
Ivar is right. I was thinking of the email sent to the
PMC requesting approval
for the Jakarta Concurrency 3.1 release. I was meaning
to say that can continue now.
No, you're
correct, Arjan. It has not been started. I guess
Nathan referred to the plan review that ran
earlier this year. Ivar On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 3: 38 PM Arjan
Tijms via cu-dev <cu-dev@ eclipse. org> wrote:
Hi, Nathan, are you
No, you're correct, Arjan. It has
not been started. I guess Nathan referred to the
plan review that ran earlier this year.
Hi,
Nathan, are you sure the
Concurrency 3.1 ballot was started before? I
didn't see any mail posted indicating so, but
maybe I missed it somehow. Can you provide a
link to the mailing list?
Ed,
The changes you
asked for have been made now and the
specification pull and CCR are updated.
The ballot had been started previously.
Does it need to be restarted now that
fixes were made?
Ed,
I believe
we have addressed all of the
issues you raised and have thus
far attempted several times to
update the TCK certification
results accordingly, but every
time we do so another update pops
up that one of the other vendors
wants made to the TCK, and we need
to start over. After an update
that was requested earlier this
week, we got agreement on the
Jakarta EE Platform call that that
would be the last one and we would
push forward with what we have
after making that change. We are
very close to getting the TCK
results published from after
that. It should be noted that
just today another update request
did come in which is being
discussed. However, per the prior
agreement, I assume it will be
deferred and possibly covered with
a challenge if need be.
Checking back in -- Can someone
(Kyle maybe?) provide a
status update with respect
to the issues I've raised
and/or when we might project
starting the release ballot.
Thank you, -- Ed On 5/2/2024
7: 29 AM, Kyle Aure wrote: Hey Ed,
Thanks for
Checking back in -- Can someone
(Kyle maybe?) provide a status
update with respect to the
issues I've raised and/or when
we might project starting the
release ballot.
Thank you,
-- Ed
On 5/2/2024
7:29 AM, Kyle Aure wrote:
Thanks for
the clarification.
Taking a
closer look at the two TCK
Distribution zips I
figured out what was
causing the checksums to
be different.
The HTML
version of the TCK guide
had a footer with a
generated date.
Hi Kyle
There will only be one
TCK tracked by the Spec.
committee. Whatever that
file is, should be the
reference archive (docs
+ binaries + ancillary
materials). If that
reference archive
contains artifacts that
are used to run the
TCKs, those subset
archives (JARs) must
have the same SHA sum of
the files that are in
the reference file
tracked by the
committee. You are
confirming that it true.
However the TCK ZIP,
from which it is
extracted isn't
identical to the one
listed in the _index.md.
(e.g.
concurrency-tck-3.1.0.zip
has a SHA sum that is
different from
jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-tck-dist-3.1.0-dist.zip),
Therefore, I have no way
of knowing how these
relate and our process
has no way to track this
other tck ZIP file. So,
even though the embedded
JARs are the same, the
archive that contains it
isn't going to match
anything. Had
concurrency-tck-3.1.0.zip
simply been a rename of
jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-tck-dist-3.1.0-dist.zip the SHA sums would
have matched and we'd
have been fine. In fact,
since the TCK binary
from within the larger
archive is the same, the
test results are valid.
However, the TCK is
defined as the binaries,
ancillary files, and all
their included
documentation. Hence the
larger, reference
container archive has to
ultimately be the one
that we track. (I'm
sorry if this is
confusing.)
In short, I think,
jakarta.enterprise.concurrent-tck-dist-3.1.0-dist.zip
should be identical to
concurrency-tck-3.1.0.zip.
If there is another
reason for these to
differ, let me know and
we can try to figure out
how to resolve this.
Ultimately, this file is
the normative TCK and
what should be
referenced in all
reports.
Once the TCK has the
correct license, I'm
sure this can all be
squared away. I regret
we didn't do a better
job informing everyone
of the new TCK and Spec.
license tiles.
Regarding the number of
tests -- All I want is
the Spec committer team
to confirm the number of
tests. If that is done
with these update, I'm
satisfied.
Thank you,
-- Ed
On 5/1/2024
3:42 PM, Kyle Aure via
cu-dev wrote:
Thanks for
sending this
along.
Here are
responses to your
concerns and some
followup
questions:
-
Currently the
TCK can be
obtained from 3
different
locations:
-
Embedded
JAR
- SHA 256:
9c16f858b19da7041125b268dd0f8c80105cd02dd3cca9c87b3abf8b81988a65
-
Embedded
JAR
- SHA 256:
9c16f858b19da7041125b268dd0f8c80105cd02dd3cca9c87b3abf8b81988a65
-
So the question
we (Open
Liberty) has is
which SHA should
we be reporting?
-
We reported the
SHA for the zip
downloaded from
eclipse, but it
seems we should
have reported
the SHA sum for
the TCK jar
itself.
-
I have updated
the
certification
template for
concurrency to
reflect this: https://github.com/jakartaee/concurrency/pull/485
-
Pull request
opened: https://github.com/jakartaee/concurrency/pull/484
-
Our
documentation
listed the
number of tests
ran (268)
and tests skipped
(27)
-
Whereas, the
maven-surefire-plugin
lists the number
of tests total
(295) and tests
skipped
(27)
-
So the number of
skipped tests is
double counted
and our
documentation
did not account
for that.
Spec landing
page (_index.md):
Specification
license text needs
to be updated
everywhere it
appears:
FYI - Seeing
as how I need to
update the
license we will
need to re-build
and re-stage the
final release
meaning we will
need to re-run
the TCK and post
results.
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):
-
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
_______________________________________________
cu-dev mailing
list
cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe
from this list,
visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev
_______________________________________________
cu-dev mailing list
cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev
_______________________________________________
cu-dev mailing list
cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev
_______________________________________________
cu-dev mailing list
cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev
--
Ivar
Grimstad
Jakarta
EE Developer Advocate | Eclipse
Foundation Eclipse
Foundation
- Community. Code. Collaboration.
_______________________________________________
cu-dev mailing list
cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!IdYV5kndV1hb86hE_Yzd7mEBR61Z9T4w8lgNdT-PNCd5s9y26AHQCkgInsYTlVsiDBsL6-XclO4q_Cs$
_______________________________________________
cu-dev mailing list
cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!MZWgm98o7V7Q4cmVaW9wi2bAhfjYgMDmdow5AD4w0lwKjNzV9tzr6Rny_MckhTBcWKIuv5YYPLkn6rE$
_______________________________________________
cu-dev mailing list
cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!Khy49DjLkegL2EJXub76LpGcVT_B97bZU7mobrRzaOm7VJg-wDQuj7OTANpuei09RGttefA9RPjcgaM$
- References:
- [cu-dev] Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1
- Re: [cu-dev] Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1
- Re: [cu-dev] [External] : Re: Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1
- Re: [cu-dev] [External] : Re: Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1
- Re: [cu-dev] [External] : Re: Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1
- Re: [cu-dev] : Re: Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1
- Re: [cu-dev] : Re: Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1
- Re: [cu-dev] : Re: Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1
- Re: [cu-dev] : Re: Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1
- Re: [cu-dev] : Re: Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1
- Re: [cu-dev] [External] : Re: : Re: Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1
- Re: [cu-dev] [External] : Re: : Re: Mentor Review Feedback, Concurrency 3.1