| Re: [cu-dev] TCK re-spin needed and Jenkins job does not appear to be overwriting promoted |
Well we haven’t raised a challenge yet and I wouldn’t say at this stage that our challenge isn’t valid. We will need to check that the tested behaviour is not dependent on a specific implementation or whether it is a bug in our implementation. We want to test the behaviour on Jakarta EE 8 as it has been asserted that this requirement has existed since 1.0 before we raise a challenge. If there is a significant behaviour change then GlassFish 10 will also struggle to be compatible.
Steve
From: Nathan Rauh <nathan.rauh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 26 April 2022 20:32
To: Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>; cu developer discussions <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Petr Aubrecht <aubrecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [cu-dev] TCK re-spin needed and Jenkins job does not appear to be overwriting promoted
Scott,
None of then apply. Sorry about not being clear and stating this too generically. When I said “getting it closed out”, I had intended that to mean cancel it by whatever method the TCK challenge process permits us to cancel/decline challenges (I haven’t read the challenge process yet, so I don’t know – too busy right now with just trying to get the spec out the door)
From: Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 2:21 PM
To: cu developer discussions <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Nathan Rauh <nathan.rauh@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Petr Aubrecht <aubrecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cu-dev] TCK re-spin needed and Jenkins job does not appear to be overwriting promoted
On 4/26/22 3:01 PM, Nathan Rauh wrote: The other one, https://github.com/jakartaee/concurrency/pull/212 didn’t appear to be valid after I found language in both the JavaDoc API for ManagedThreadFactory as well as the specification section on
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
On 4/26/22 3:01 PM, Nathan Rauh wrote:
The other one,
https://github.com/jakartaee/concurrency/pull/212
didn’t appear to be valid after I found language in both the JavaDoc API for ManagedThreadFactory as well as the specification section on ManagedThreadFactory confirming the expectations of the test around capturing thread context upon ManagedThreadFactory lookup.
I only put comments with my findings in it thus far. We should follow the TCK challenge process for getting it closed out.
Valid challenges are listed in https://jakarta.ee/committees/specification/tckprocess, which of the stated reasons would apply?
Copied valid challenges from ^ link:
· Claims that a test assertion conflicts with the specification.
· Claims that a test asserts requirements over and above that of the specification.
· Claims that an assertion of the specification is not sufficiently implementable.
· Claims that a test is not portable or depends on a particular implementation.
Please confirm that the reason for challenge is that the test asserts requirements over and above that of the specification (second bullet item above)? I'm asking just to ensure that the reason for removing or excluding the test is aligned with our TCK process.
Scott
From: "Steve Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 1:41 PM
To: Nathan Rauh <nathan.rauh@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>, cu developer discussions <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Petr Aubrecht <aubrecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [cu-dev] TCK re-spin needed and Jenkins job does not appear to be overwriting promoted
OK. We still have the other PR as well though. From: Nathan Rauh <nathan.rauh@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: 26 April 2022 19:29 To: Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>; cu developer discussions <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Petr
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
OK. We still have the other PR as well though.
From: Nathan Rauh <nathan.rauh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 26 April 2022 19:29
To: Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>; cu developer discussions <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Petr Aubrecht <aubrecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [cu-dev] TCK re-spin needed and Jenkins job does not appear to be overwriting promoted
Sure, that approach works. We’ll go ahead with this latest staged TCK then.
The issue you mention below sounds like what Petr just put in an update to the TCK to switch away from, and is why I did the re-spin, so hopefully that will run cleanly for you now.
From: "Steve Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 1:17 PM
To: Nathan Rauh <nathan.rauh@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>, cu developer discussions <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Petr Aubrecht <aubrecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [cu-dev] TCK re-spin needed and Jenkins job does not appear to be overwriting promoted
It may be we have to do test challenges post ballot using the TCK challenge process. We haven’t got to the bottom of it yet but some of the tests which pass a lookedup ManagedThreadFactory out of the originating component and then expect to
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
It may be we have to do test challenges post ballot using the TCK challenge process.
We haven’t got to the bottom of it yet but some of the tests which pass a lookedup ManagedThreadFactory out of the originating component and then expect to use the originating component namespace seem to be contrary to the behaviour of the original GlassFish Concurrency RI.
Steve
From: Nathan Rauh <nathan.rauh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 26 April 2022 19:11
To: Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>; cu developer discussions <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Petr Aubrecht <aubrecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [cu-dev] TCK re-spin needed and Jenkins job does not appear to be overwriting promoted
Petr, if there are other TCK issues that you were going to open, it would be good to get them open and looked at right. We came very close to requesting spec approval this morning and would have done so if it weren’t for the Open Liberty publish of the results getting hung up. Even after this latest one, we’ve already started to prepare the next attempt at running and publishing, and we shouldn’t be doing that if you will be opening other issues. Also, we need to consider what this will mean for EE 10. My understanding is that if we don’t request spec approval in the next few days, then we have missed EE 10.
From: "Steve Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:12 PM
To: Nathan Rauh <nathan.rauh@xxxxxxxxxx>, cu developer discussions <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Petr Aubrecht <aubrecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [cu-dev] TCK re-spin needed and Jenkins job does not appear to be overwriting promoted
I’ll take a look at the job to see what it is doing. I now Petr has some other TCK challenges he is working on. From: Nathan Rauh <nathan.rauh@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: 26 April 2022 18:03 To: cu developer discussions <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
I’ll take a look at the job to see what it is doing. I now Petr has some other TCK challenges he is working on.
From: Nathan Rauh <nathan.rauh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 26 April 2022 18:03
To: cu developer discussions <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Petr Aubrecht <aubrecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Steve Millidge (Payara) <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>; arjan tijms <arjan.tijms@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cu-dev] TCK re-spin needed and Jenkins job does not appear to be overwriting promoted
Petr found a copy/paste error that needed to be fixed in the TCK, and so I had to re-build the TCK.
Both builds claimed to be successful, however, it appears that the Promote Staged TCK didn’t actually overwrite the artifacts at the promoted location
Staged:
https://download.eclipse.org/ee4j/cu/jakartaee10/staged/eftl/concurrency-tck-3.0.0.info
2fe905b8adfab903a6c5954453e67fbc3ed583b0e313edef7f09d18b7eddd0ee concurrency-tck-3.0.0-dist.zip
-rw-r--r--. 1 jenkins 1001550000 398136 Apr 26 16:27 concurrency-tck-3.0.0-dist.zip
Promoted:
https://download.eclipse.org/ee4j/cu/jakartaee10/promoted/eftl/concurrency-tck-3.0.0.info
93fdfc808fff4e2fbd52883c7378b369d8ee81c87964ca8d3b6dfc20eb03e1d4 concurrency-tck-3.0.0-dist.zip-rw-r--r--. 1 jenkins 1001550000 398134 Apr 25 18:21 concurrency-tck-3.0.0-dist.zip
Note the date and SHA under promoted still match the original, not the updated from staged.
We can probably go ahead with the release approval based only on the staged location, assuming that it will be possible to fix the Promote Staged TCK build to do an overwrite (Arjan and Steve – your help is needed with this). However, if we do that, it will be important that no one submits any further Concurrency TCK Master Builds or merges changes to the spec (which will trigger a Concurrency TCK Master Build) in the meantime because doing so would overwrite the staged copy that we are attempting to use for approval.
From: cu-dev <cu-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "Steve Millidge (Payara)" <steve.millidge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: cu developer discussions <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:36 PM
To: cu developer discussions <cu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [cu-dev] Promoted and Staged TCKs on our downloads
Hi All, Thanks for the assistance from various people. We now have both staged and promoted TCK zip files on Eclipse Downloads Project download area | The Eclipse Foundation Project download area | The Eclipse Foundation
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi All,
Thanks for the assistance from various people.
We now have both staged and promoted TCK zip files on Eclipse Downloads
Project download area | The Eclipse Foundation
Project download area | The Eclipse Foundation
I have modified the TCK Build job Jakarta Concurrency - Concurrency TCK Master Build [Jenkins] (eclipse.org) to automatically upload to the staged directory on downloads if the build succeeds. This job is triggered by a commit in the repo which means that if there is a change a new TCK zip will appear in the staged directory with likely a new SHA.
I have also created a Jenkins job Jakarta Concurrency - Promote Staged TCK [Jenkins] (eclipse.org) which copies the zip file from the staged directory to the promoted directory. This job is manually triggered so we have control if we want to “promote” a specific “staged” zip file.
I’m sure these jobs could be done better if I had a better view of what an ideal workflow would be for releasing the TCK but should suffice to get us to ballot.
Any problems give me a shout.
Steve Millidge
_______________________________________________cu-dev mailing listcu-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cu-dev