We can just pr it, a challenge would be a wrong test, here it is a "standard" bug ;).
Le mar. 25 avr. 2023 à 22:04, Markus Jung <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi Romain, > > good idea, that fixes it with minimal code while still using OWB. Will PR > that. Do you think we should try to change/challenge the TCK tests over > this? > > > Thanks > > Markus > > > On 25. Apr 2023, at 21:34, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > We can force the CDI impl with maven classloader so just impl your own > > provider and serve it delegating to owb in tests code to behave as well > but > > it is clearly not portable, should call getBeanManager(), current just > > resolves the provider, not the container IIRC > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > < > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > Le mar. 25 avr. 2023 à 21:17, Markus Jung <[email protected]> a > écrit : > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> jsonb CDI integration TCKs seem to rely on what I think is behaviour > >> undefined in the CDI spec: > >> - > >> > https://github.com/jakartaee/jsonb-api/blob/3.0.0/tck/src/main/java/ee/jakarta/tck/json/bind/cdi/customizedmapping/adapters/AdaptersCustomizationCDITest.java#L57 > >> - > >> > https://github.com/jakartaee/jsonb-api/blob/3.0.0/tck/src/main/java/ee/jakarta/tck/json/bind/cdi/customizedmapping/serializers/SerializersCustomizationCDITest.java#L54 > >> > >> CDI spec says: > >>> CDI.getBeanContainer(), as well as other methods on CDI, may be called > >> after the application initialization is completed until the application > >> shutdown starts. If methods on CDI are called at any other time, > >> non-portable behavior results. > >> > >> > >> Replacing owb with weld fixes the TCK tests I linked, but I don’t > believe > >> that’s an acceptable solution. That’s just a dirty workaround to get > TCKs > >> to run and I’m not even sure if we can do that license wise tbh > >> > >> wdyt on this? Do we ignore these CDI tests for now and try to get the > TCKs > >> fixed? Or am I just missing something/misinterpreting the spec and this > is > >> a OWB bug? > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Markus > >
