Ok got it resolved pls ignore my prev mail
Regards
Manu
On 1/31/07, Manu George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I did some experimentation on this approach and came up with
> the following problem.
> Currently when the iTests are run for an application in the
> openejb-core module, there is an application.xml which gets loaded
> which has the element
>
> <module>
> <ejb>openejb-itests-beans-3.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar</ejb>
> </module>
>
> So when I try to run the annotated beans in the module
> openejb-itests-annotated-beans-3.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar
> by hiding the openejb-itests-beans I get an error saying the module
> openejb-itests-beans-3.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar cannot be loaded.
> Is there any way to work around this?
>
> Regards
> Manu
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/24/07, Manu George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes thats a good idea. I had forgotten about this :). Let me
look into
> > creating a separate test suite for this
> >
> > Regards
> > Manu
> >
> > On 1/24/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Following up in this thread as I need to plug in some
annotation
> > > based test into the itests as we are having some issues in the
> > > Geronimo integration that are nearly impossible to get
working or
> > > ensure are working without actual annotations.
> > >
> > > We had discussed a separate test suite for annotated beans,
which is
> > > still a good idea. I plan to make a purely annotated
version of our
> > > jndi enc and field injection tests, I'll just put them in
new classes
> > > next to the other tests. We can move them out later if we
want to go
> > > ahead with the plan to test a completely ejb-jar.xml free
set of itests.
> > >
> > >
> > > -David
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 26, 2006, at 6:48 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Manu,
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 23, 2006, at 2:04 AM, Manu George wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi David/Mohammad,
> > > >>
> > > >> What I was planning was to add annotated beans for each
of the
> > > >> corressponding beans deployed using the deployment
descriptor. Then
> > > >> execute all the test cases existing for the dd deployed
beans for the
> > > >> annotated beans as well.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds great.
> > > >
> > > >> In addition to this we need to create new
> > > >> test cases for checking the overrides as well as the
defaults(i.e.
> > > >> beans with the very minimum annotations. The unpecified
config
> > > >> attributes should be substituted by defaults).
> > > >
> > > > Even with the override testing idea I posted before, we'll
still
> > > > want a few beans and tests, so this is still a good idea.
> > > >
> > > >> I was thinking that if we can deploy the annotated
ejbs with
> > > >> the same name as the dd based ones we can execute the
existing tests
> > > >> as well. We will have the beans and remote interfaces
extending from
> > > >> the existing ones as well.
> > > >
> > > > We don't have support for it yet, but we can use the
mappedName
> > > > attribute of the @Stateful, @Stateless, or @MessageDriven
> > > > annotations to specify the OpenEJB deploymentId. We'll
likely want
> > > > to start using the mappedName of some of the other
annotations as
> > > > well. And we'll definitely want to document how we've
allocated
> > > > the "mappedName" attributes of various annotations on the
website
> > > > nice and clearly as it's vendor-specific. Maybe a table
of some sort.
> > > >
> > > >> I plan to implement this by creating two new
TestSuites
> > > >> corressponding to iTest and RemoteiTest namely
AnnotatediTest and
> > > >> AnnotatedRemoteiTest. In iTest and RemoteiTest I will add
the
> > > >> following system property
> > > >> System.setProperty("openejb.deployments.classpath.exclude",
> > > >> ".*openejb-itests-annotated-beans.*");
> > > >> This will prevent openejb from loading the descriptors in
that
> > > >> directory and so the annotated beans.Similarly if I set
the property
> > > >> to .*openejb-itests-beans.* in AnnotatediTests suite then
the dd
> > > >> based
> > > >> beans won't be deployed. This will minimize the tests we
need to
> > > >> write
> > > >> for annotated beans.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly what that's for! Though I'm beginning to think we
should
> > > > add an "openejb.deployments.classpath.include" as well.
Is this
> > > > something someone want's to add?
> > > >
> > > >> One issue I am not sure of here is even though we
> > > >> will have annotated business interfaces in the jar
deployed in server
> > > >> the existing tests will use the parent interfaces only so
we may need
> > > >> to create some tests with annotated interfaces used at
client side.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure out that will play out either. We should be
able to
> > > > get by, but there may be places we want tests dedicated to
the
> > > > annotated beans/interfaces.
> > > >
> > > >> Now I may have been missing something when i came
up with
> > > >> this approach and so it may not work. So I am looking for
your
> > > >> comments poiniting out the issues with this approach. Better
> > > >> ideas,improvements and comments are welcome from anyone.
> > > >
> > > > You nailed it pretty well.
> > > >
> > > > One thing in general is that the field injection, setter
injection,
> > > > EJBContext.lookup (no JIRA for this yet), and JNDI ENC
lookup tests
> > > > are all going to doing pretty much the exact same things.
It'd be
> > > > best if they were all as similar as possible. We have a
test for
> > > > the JNDI ENC lookups on the types available in EJB 1.1
(needs to be
> > > > updated for EJB3 also).
> > > >
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openejb/trunk/
openejb3/
> > > > itests/openejb-itests-beans/src/main/java/org/apache/
openejb/test/
> > > > stateless/EncStatelessBean.java
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openejb/trunk/
openejb3/
> > > > itests/openejb-itests-client/src/main/java/org/apache/
openejb/test/
> > > > stateless/StatelessJndiEncTests.java
> > > >
> > > > This may or may not be useful as a launching pad for the new
> > > > tests. We don't have to follow that style and we very
well may
> > > > want to rewrite that test to follow the style of the new
tests if
> > > > it turns out to be different.
> > > >
> > > > -David
> > > >
> > > >> Thanks
> > > >> Manu
> > > >>
> > > >> On 11/20/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>> On Nov 20, 2006, at 1:48 AM, Manu George wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > Hi David,
> > > >>> > Have you created the beans that we are
going to test
> > > >>> > annotations? If not shall I go ahead and create the
beans as
> > > >>> extending
> > > >>> > from the current test beans. I plan to create the
session beans
> > > >>> > required for testing the annotations you have
implemented.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Go for it!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You can throw everything into an itests/openejb-itests-
annotated-
> > > >>> beans/ module.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Note sure just yet how we'll wire it in to run with the
other tests.
> > > >>> If you have any ideas, I'm all ears.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -David
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
