Oscar, This sounds like a bug. Perhaps raise a ticket for it? That said, I'm afraid I don't have the bandwidth at the moment to investigate; as I said, my focus at the moment is making sure all the formally released code is working well, and is why I'd rather not be releasing the JUnit viewer yet.
But if you are relying heavily on the JUnit viewer (as it looks like you are), and you want to help take this forward to a formal release, then I'm happy to explain the ideas I have for developing it, so you can take it forward as a contribution back to Isis if you wish. Cheers Dan On 10 May 2013 19:43, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou <[email protected]>wrote: > > I'm not sure if this is the expected behaviour while testing Domain > Objects through the JUnit viewer. > > While doing tests over factory actions, one assert would be to verify the > object has been persisted through the > DomainObjectContainer.isPersistent(domainObject) method. > > If the evaluation is done over a wrapped object, it returns false. > > If it's done over the original object, it returns true. > > As an example: > > // Test if the Domain Object has been persisted. > assertTrue(domainObjectContainer > > .isPersistent(communicationPathAssociatedWithNode)); > > // Node must be wrapped for the Apache Isis validators to > be executed. > communicationPathAssociatedWithNode = > wrapped(communicationPathAssociatedWithNode); > > assertTrue(domainObjectContainer > > .isPersistent(communicationPathAssociatedWithNode)); > > > The last assertion fails. The only difference I expected was the > validation of the programming model. Is it correct? I'm sure there's > anything I'm missing. > > Thanks in advance! > >
