[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-580) illegal TCK test for indirect specialization
Title: Message Title Mark Struberg created an issue CDI TCK / CDITCK-580 illegal TCK test for indirect specialization Issue Type: Bug Affects Versions: 2.0.0.Final Assignee: Tomas Remes Components: Tests Created: 29/May/17 5:01 AM Priority: Major Reporter: Mark Struberg SimpleBeanSpecializationTest#testIndirectSpecialization() assumes that qualifiers of 'inbetween' specialisations should also get picked up. But this contradicts the spec 4.3.1. Direct and indirect specialization ... Formally, a bean X is said to specialize another bean Y if either: • X directly specializes Y, or • a bean Z exists, such that X directly specializes Z and Z specializes Y. Then X will inherit the qualifiers and name of Y: It does intentionally NOT say "Then X will inherit the qualifiers and name of Y and Z" So having a class @Specializes @Lazy LazyFarmer extends Farmer class @Specializes @Landlord Farmer extends Human class Human Should per spec lead to LazyFarmer having @Lazy and @Default, but not @Landlord! Also compare this with the wording for @Named which is really the same! And you also do not pickup any @Named from the 'intermediate' beans, right?
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-580) illegal TCK test for indirect specialization
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes commented on CDITCK-580 Re: illegal TCK test for indirect specialization Well this is something similar as in https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDITCK-422. As explained by Jozef in http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/2014-June/005082.html I still believe that the transitive rules of specialization apply. I suggest to close this issue as rejected. 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-580) illegal TCK test for indirect specialization
Title: Message Title Mark Struberg commented on CDITCK-580 Re: illegal TCK test for indirect specialization No, read the comments, e.g. from Pete > It would also be highly weird that if you added a parent class to the bean that has been specialised, that the name would magically change. And my own message which remained unchallenged: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/2014-June/005089.html 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-580) illegal TCK test for indirect specialization
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes commented on CDITCK-580 Re: illegal TCK test for indirect specialization So let's pretend we have only class @Specializes @Landowner Farmer extends Human and some IP like: @Inject @Landowner Farmer farmer; This will work without problems right. Now we add (there are no qualifiers intentionally): class @Specializes LazyFarmer extends Farmer and what will happen with the original IP according the behavior you suggest? Unsatisfied dep? We should file a CDI clarification issue then. Add Comment
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-580) illegal TCK test for indirect specialization
Title: Message Title Mark Struberg commented on CDITCK-580 Re: illegal TCK test for indirect specialization Yes. Think about it a bit further. Take your original @Landowner Farmer: What if you like to do class @Specializes @Landowner BigFarmer extends Farmer plus class @Specializes @Lazy LazyFarmer extends Farmer With your interpretation you have no way to get rid of any qualifier, right? Add Comment This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005-sha1:73be91d) __
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-580) illegal TCK test for indirect specialization
Title: Message Title Matej Novotny commented on CDITCK-580 Re: illegal TCK test for indirect specialization Mark Struberg There was a slight change in 2.0 from what I recall. The actual wording in 2.0 is a bit different (clearly stating transitivity in specialization): Formally, a bean X is said to specialize another bean Y if there is either: direct specialization, where X directly specializes Y, or transitive specialization, where a bean Z exists, such that X directly specializes Z and Z specializes Y. 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-580) illegal TCK test for indirect specialization
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes commented on CDITCK-580 Re: illegal TCK test for indirect specialization I am sorry I am not sure I follow. In this case you will get inconsistent specialization according to 5.1.3. Inconsistent specialization right? 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-580) illegal TCK test for indirect specialization
Title: Message Title Mark Struberg commented on CDITCK-580 Re: illegal TCK test for indirect specialization Yes you are right, the sample was dumb I also had a few more thoughts. After thinking a few hours about it I took a step back. You know what? In all the soon 10 years of working on CDI in big projects I've not often seen indirect specialization. And I never saw that the qualifier got changed. Do you guys have any other impression? In the end we are fighting about an almost purely academical problem which has no practical impact 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-580) illegal TCK test for indirect specialization
Title: Message Title Martin Kouba commented on CDITCK-580 Re: illegal TCK test for indirect specialization In the end we are fighting about an almost purely academical problem which has no practical impact... +1 for not spending much time with similar corner cases. Note that this tck test is very old and it wasn't a problem for OWB before . If there is no agreement a spec issue should be created so that other EG members could comment on the topic, otherwise this challenge should be rejected. 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-580) illegal TCK test for indirect specialization
Title: Message Title Tomas Remes resolved as Rejected Mark I agree that this is mostly corner case (as most of the TCKs tests) and it's likely not very common in apps using CDI. I am rejecting this issue. If you still believe it should behave differently please submit a new CDI issue. CDI TCK / CDITCK-580 illegal TCK test for indirect specialization Change By: Tomas Remes Status: Open Resolved Resolution: Rejected 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.jb
[weld-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (CDITCK-580) illegal TCK test for indirect specialization
Title: Message Title Antoine Sabot-Durand commented on CDITCK-580 Re: illegal TCK test for indirect specialization Agree that spec should clarify this point. I created CDI-703 for 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
