Alright. The PR to add the TCK module is available at https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1712 It's not green because of flaky tests fixed in https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/1711 still not merged (but it's green).
The PR adds a module with the TCK but they don't run until you add the profile, so it's a no-op PR with the current build. So waiting for all the tests to pass is not necessary in my opinion. As soon as the reactor is happy .... I ran the TCK entirely and added the report in the PR itself. I created the Github issue https://github.com/apache/activemq/issues/1713 wich is the top level issue. Then I created a bunch of small issues for each failures or group of failure and started assigning some to me and adding commits to fix the quick win. I started also on the async send which passes the TCK and is green. We already had the ProducerAck in OpenWire and an AckCallback in the session, so I basically wrapped it into a CompletionListener. I'm not sure if we need more or want more. The rest of the changes are basically TCK related for the exceptions (edge cases). -- Jean-Louis Monteiro http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro http://www.tomitribe.com On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 4:03 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < [email protected]> wrote: > Awesome, I think I created sub-issues in the global TCK issue in Github. > You might have it already, otherwise, please create one so we can track the > work. > Let me know if I can help. > -- > Jean-Louis Monteiro > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 3:43 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I have a PR for message delay feature that we can go with without >> updating OpenWire protocol. >> >> I’ll refresh it and get it ready for 6.3.0 >> >> > On Feb 25, 2026, at 12:10 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Jean-Louis, >> > >> > Thanks for your work on this, as we discussed offline. >> > >> > It is great to have this for two main reasons: >> > >> > 1. It provides a clear assessment of our current Jakarta Messaging 3.1 >> > support and identifies the remaining gaps. >> > 2. It gives us the opportunity to be listed as a compatible >> implementation >> > on the Jakarta website. >> > >> > I am moving forward with the receiveBody() implementation, so I >> estimate we >> > are currently between 88% and 92%. Some remaining parts will require >> more >> > significant effort, such as durable subscribers, which require updates >> to >> > the OpenWire protocol and KahaDB internals. >> > >> > If we can make the TCK runnable via a Maven profile, that would be >> > excellent, as it would allow us to run it on the CI on a weekly basis. >> > >> > Thanks again! >> > >> > Regards, >> > JB >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 9:02 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi team, >> >> >> >> I've been trying to set up the Jakarta Messaging 3.1 TCK on Apache >> >> ActiveMQ. I should have a PR ready by tomorrow. It won't pass all the >> tests >> >> of course, so it won't run on any CI for the moment. But it's >> interesting >> >> to get a bit more coverage on ActiveMQ and also good to help filling >> the >> >> gaps. >> >> >> >> I'm not sure if there is any willingness to become a >> >> compatible implementation listed on the Jakarta website, but it won't >> hurt >> >> either. >> >> >> >> We are currently at 90%. My experience on various TCK work is that the >> last >> >> tests usually are harder to get to pass. >> >> >> >> I'll keep you posted tomorrow when I know more about the first runs. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jean-Louis Monteiro >> >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro >> >> http://www.tomitribe.com >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact >> >> >>
