On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Simon, > I have provided the fix with TUSCANY-2362 for the same. > > For Junit4, let me have a look and provide the changes accordingly. > > > On 6/2/08, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > After downloading the complete latest code from the repository, i > noticed > > > that the reason for the failure in CouldNotResolveLocation for > > > implementation.resource and implementation.widget validation is due to > > the > > > missed code while applying the patch. > > > > > > The changes suggested in the patch does not seem to appear in the > > committed > > > code. For instance TUSCANY-2344 suggested a change in > > > WidgetImplementationProcessor resolve method as shown below, which is > > > required for the tests to be sucessfull. > > > > > > while (reader.hasNext()) { > > > @@ -128,8 +149,11 @@ > > > } catch (IOException e) { > > > ContributionResolveException ce = new > > > ContributionResolveException(e); > > > error("ContributionResolveException", resolver, ce); > > > - throw ce; > > > + //throw ce; > > > } > > > + } else { > > > + error("CouldNotResolveLocation", resolver, > > > implementation.getLocation()); > > > + //throw new ContributionResolveException("Could not > resolve > > > implementation.widget location: " + implementation.getLocation()); > > > } > > > Not sure, if i should open a new JIRA OR reopen the older ones to apply > > the > > > patch again. Please suggest. > > > > > > Also would be helpful if you could elobrate more about the conversion > of > > > tests to JUnit4. Thakns. > > > > > > On 5/29/08, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > FYI. I've seen a couple of problems with the widget and resource > > > validation > > > > testing during may latest build. CouldNotResolveLocation doesn't seem > > to > > > be > > > > raise. I've @Ignored these tests for now just in case it's going to > > > affect > > > > others (I changed the test to JUnit4 to make this easy) . > > > > > > > > > > > > As an aside we should probably go through these tests and convert to > > > Junit4 > > > > > > > > Also I notice that the original tests I added don't fit into the neat > > > > categorization scheme that has been used subsequently so I'll > endeavor > > to > > > > move the original tests into the new scheme to tidy things up. > > > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > Ramkumar Ramalingam > > > > > > > Hi Ram > > > > Can you identify which parts of the patch are missing and create a new > > patch > > based on just these. As they didn't apply properly in the first place I > > don't think that trying to apply the existing patch again will have the > > desired effect. > > > > Re. Junit4. Some of our tests in Tuscany use JUnit4 and some of them use > > older versions of JUnit. As we are creating new tests here it would be > > convenient to use the latest version of JUnit. > > > > Regards > > > > Simon > > > > > > -- > Thanks & Regards, > Ramkumar Ramalingam > Hi Ram Thanks for that. The JUnit4 thing is not an emergency. As we create new tests we can use JUnit4 Simon