[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-588) AnnotatedTypeConfiguratorTest#annotatedTypesAndMemebersEqual wrongly assumes that AnnotatedTypes implement equals()
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes updated an issue CDI TCK / CDITCK-588 AnnotatedTypeConfiguratorTest#annotatedTypesAndMemebersEqual wrongly assumes that AnnotatedTypes implement equals() Agree. I added the issue to the exclude list Change By: Tomas Remes Fix Version/s: 2.0.1.Final Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-589) AnnotatedTypeConfiguratorTest fails randomly
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes assigned an issue to Martin Kouba Agree. I added the test to the exclude list. CDI TCK / CDITCK-589 AnnotatedTypeConfiguratorTest fails randomly Change By: Tomas Remes Fix Version/s: 2.0.1.Final Assignee: Tomas Remes Martin Kouba Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-589) AnnotatedTypeConfiguratorTest fails randomly
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes updated CDITCK-589 CDI TCK / CDITCK-589 AnnotatedTypeConfiguratorTest fails randomly Change By: Tomas Remes Status: Pull Request Sent Resolved Resolution: Done Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-591) AlternativeMetadataTest createVegetables and destroyVegetables violate Type Closure rules
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes commented on CDITCK-591 Re: AlternativeMetadataTest createVegetables and destroyVegetables violate Type Closure rules I think we have to look at 2 different pieces. The sentence quoted above regarding Disposer-Producer matching requires the exact same return type. Not Type Closures, it explicitly says "return type". This rule is violated by the example I don't think this is violated in the test. The Grocery#createVegetable (wrapped by new AT - GroceryWrapper) returns type Carrot which reflects the corresponding assertion which states: the container must call Annotated.getTypeClosure() to determine the bean types of any kind of bean, The related disposal method has parameter with type Carrot as well (again it reflects corresponding assertion wrt Annotated.getBaseType()). I can't see anything wrong in this test. The other point which is imo violated is that the type closure must only be a sub section of the original types. Where is it defined? The test doesn't restrict any type closure set of any existing bean. It just creates custom AT which declares the given set of types. TCK is not very often about practical use but rather about testing spec assertions which sometimes mean to test real corner cases. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d)
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-591) AlternativeMetadataTest createVegetables and destroyVegetables violate Type Closure rules
Title: Message Title Mark Struberg commented on CDITCK-591 Re: AlternativeMetadataTest createVegetables and destroyVegetables violate Type Closure rules Tomas Remes it would not violate the first restriction if it would return Carrot in getBaseType() ! But the wrapped AT violates this requirement by having a getTypeClosures() contain a class which is not contained in the the fully transitive type closure of getBaseType(). > The related disposal method has parameter with type Carrot Again, the spec paragraph clearly does not refer to type closures but to "return type". That's some different term and relates to getBaseType() in the AT afaict. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (WELD-2401) Regression in BeanDeploymentModules registration
Title: Message Title Matej Novotny commented on WELD-2401 Re: Regression in BeanDeploymentModules registration I am leaning towards fixing this on WFLY side - it is reasonable to make it use EE_INJECT environment. However, I am unable to tell how this will effect Swarm. Perhaps bigger deployment size? That is something we don't want, so we should seek alternative way to resolve this. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
