[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-509) VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes assigned an issue to Unassigned CDI TCK / CDITCK-509 VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording Change By: Tomas Remes Assignee: Tomas Remes 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-509) VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes updated an issue CDI TCK / CDITCK-509 VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording Change By: Tomas Remes Fix Version/s: TBD 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-509) VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes commented on CDITCK-509 Re: VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording I think this is possible only when @Specializes is used. If you have disabled @Alternative (PBA is not fired) then I cannot see any way how to explicitly enable it via lifecycle events. Another case is of course when you have enabled bean already and you start to play with types, isAlternative, etc. Anyway I think it would be great if we can concentrate these discussions at one place - CDI-581 is good candidate IMHO. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026-sha1:78f6ec4) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-509) VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording
Title: Message Title Mark Struberg commented on CDITCK-509 Re: VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording Again: if you play with changing types and isAlternative then you might end up with PBA not getting fired for AnnotatedTypes which will later end up as enabled Beans. Not that this is an everyday problem, but it might happen. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026-sha1:78f6ec4) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-509) VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording
Title: Message Title
Tomas Remes edited a comment on CDITCK-509
Re: VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording
Wrt {{org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.extensions.lifecycle.processBeanAttributes.VerifyValuesTest}} - the test is currently ok and reflects the spec assertion. However I understand your concern. I think the case you mention is variation at problem issued by CDI-581. On the other hand I think it could make quite sense to not allow change BeanAttributes of bean which is not enabled but it's questonable questionable ...
Add Comment
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026-sha1:78f6ec4)
___
weld-issues mailing list
weld-issues@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-509) VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes commented on CDITCK-509 Re: VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording Wrt org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.extensions.lifecycle.processBeanAttributes.VerifyValuesTest - the test is currently ok and reflects the spec assertion. However I understand your concern. I think the case you mention is variation at problem issued by CDI-581. On the other hand I think it could make quite sense to not allow change BeanAttributes of bean which is not enabled but it's questonable... Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026-sha1:78f6ec4) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-509) VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording
Title: Message Title Mark Struberg commented on CDITCK-509 Re: VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording Oh I think we missed the most obvious chicken-egg problem yet: The spec currently defines that ProcessBeanAttributes must ONLY get fired for 'enabled' beans. But if you use ProcessBeanAttributes#veto() then this bean is not enabled anymore... Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026-sha1:78f6ec4) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-509) VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording
Title: Message Title
Mark Struberg commented on CDITCK-509
Re: VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording
The same problem might apply to org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.extensions.lifecycle.processBeanAttributes.VerifyValuesTest.
There is a class
@Alternative
public class Mike {}
and the test checks that there is no ProcessBeanAttributes fired for this class (because it's a not-enabled alternative). But what happens if I would like to return false in BeanAttributes#isAlternative(). Whether that bean ends up enabled or not can imo only be judged after ProcessBeanAttributes.
Add Comment
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026-sha1:78f6ec4)
___
weld-issues mailing list
weld-issues@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-509) VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes commented on CDITCK-509 Re: VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording I'll wait for the decision about related CDI issue https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-581 in this case. Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026-sha1:78f6ec4) ___ weld-issues mailing list weld-issues@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-issues
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-509) VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording
Title: Message Title Mark Struberg created an issue CDI TCK / CDITCK-509 VetoTest is based on invalid spec wording Issue Type: Feature Request Affects Versions: 1.2.8.Final Assignee: Tomas Remes Components: Tests Created: 12/Feb/16 5:03 AM Priority: Major Reporter: Mark Struberg The current org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.extensions.lifecycle.processBeanAttributes.specialization.VetoTest also verifies that a ProcessBeanAttributes does not get fired for AnnotatedTypes which are likely to end up as disabled Bean. There are 2 problems with this behaviour as outlined in CDI-581 a.) the whole approach is not deterministic as it has an implicit chicken-egg problem b.) the spec wording "if the class is an enabled bean,.." is simply wrong. There is no 'enabled bean' at this early stage! This might have been a copy&paste error while moving the wording from ProcessBean (which has no veto and thus is deterministic) to ProcessBeanAttributes (which has a veto and can also amend other enable-relevant information). Probably it's also a mixture with ProcessAnnotatedType? It should rather test if AnnotatedTypes which got vetoed (via annotation and also via PAT#veto()) does not result in a ProcessBeanAttributes.
