[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-tck-dev] [External] : Fwd: Fwd: [jakarta.ee-spec] Interceptors seems like a template spec
|
On 8/27/21 2:03 AM, Gurunandan Rao
wrote:
+1
Once we have refactored the EJB tests to run with
Maven/Arquillian in the Platform TCK, we will have way to
enable/disable optional tests there as well (likely via system
properties like the CDI TCK uses for enabling/disabling Full
Platform -Dincontainer and Web Profile -Dincontainer=webprofile).
After that happens, it should be an easier transition for the EJB
TCK tests to then move to the EJB Spec project (if desired). The
same is true for the other technology Spec projects as well that
aren't yet helping with creating their own TCKs.
regards,
Guru
Hi,
Do you have any input on
the below about moving some Interceptor tests from the
Platform TCK to the CDI TCK?
If the CDI team wants to
maintain those tests, why *not* move them to the CDI TCK?
Thanks,
Scott
-------- Forwarded Message
--------
Please give input on the idea of moving some of the (EJB)
Interceptors tests from the Platform TCK to the CDI TCK.
From my quick look, I think that we have some Interceptors
tests that could move to the CDI TCK. Would moving some of
the Interceptor tests that also test EJB, create a problem
for the Jakarta Enterprise Beans team? I think this would
be limited to moving the Interceptors specific test groups
(like
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/tree/master/src/com/sun/ts/tests/ejb30/timer/interceptor).
One possible reason against such a move is that the
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck/tree/master/src/com/sun/ts/tests/ejb30/timer/interceptor
tests are not just testing Interceptors, as they are also
testing EJB Timers with Interceptors. Still if the CDI team
wants to maintain those tests, why note move them to the CDI
TCK?
Thanks,
Scott
-------- Forwarded Message --------
On 8/25/21 10:43 AM, Scott
Stark wrote:
We were discussing @Interceptors in the CDI
call and realized this project does not produce a TCK.
It is another spec that is relies on the platform TCK:
We also have many tests for this in the
CDI TCK. This is a bad arrangement because it is one
of the base api dependencies for CDI, and EJB. It
would make more sense to have this in CDI and drop the
platform tests and create a new standalone TCK from
the existing CDI tests.
https://gist.github.com/scottmarlow/c3e518a64e786887c8c88c8a4ed46797
is a list of the Platform TCK tests that reference
jakarta.interceptor classes. Within the EJB tests that
use jakarta.interceptor, there is a subset that seem to be
specifically for testing @Interceptors which seem to be
contained in a `/interceptor/` test folder.
I'm not personally against moving certain
EJB/Interceptors tests to the CDI TCK but will ask for
more input on Platform TCK ml + EJB SPEC ML.
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev