Hopefully Kevan will chime in too, but it's my understanding that we have to pass the BVAL TCK as provided by Oracle under the Oracle/ASF NDA in order to claim we're certified....
During daily testing, I use the TCK files downloaded from the JBoss repo. Before we release the Apache BVAL artifacts, I always run the release artifacts against the TCK as provided by Oracle. -Donald On 10/1/10 2:14 PM, Matt Benson wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Donald Woods wrote: > >> The current BVAL TCK from Oracle that we have to certify with is >> jsr303-tck-1.0.3.GA-dist.zip, which uses the 1.0.3.GA level of the API. >> > > Apparently I am not fully cognizant of the TCK-related aspects of the JCP > process. > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BeanValidation/JSR303+TCK says: > TBD - Need to ask if we must use the Sun/Oracle provided TCK for final > certification testing.... > > Have there been further developments in this regard? It was my impression > that a spec implementation must simply pass the TCK supplied by the spec > lead. I had no idea there was both an Oracle TCK and a JBoss TCK. Where I > can learn more about certification as it applies to this JSR and our efforts? > >> If you look at the TCK that gets downloaded during the TCK build, those >> files also download the 1.0.3.GA level of the API and matches the >> distribution as provided by Oracle. >> > > I honestly don't see where you see this. I don't see any indication of it in > bval-tck/target/dependency/lib or in the tck POM. > >> I haven't looked at the 1.0.4 level yet, so is there something in there >> that we need? What changes were introduced? >> > > My lack of understanding of the issues simply led me to believe that the more > recent release of the spec we could pass, the better. In particular I had > hoped that there might be a difference in TCK versions with regard to my > allegations on the incorrectness of the RI implementation of the Path > interface. > > -Matt > >> >> -Donald >> >> >> On 10/1/10 12:37 PM, Matt Benson wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 1, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Donald Woods wrote: >>> >>>> Matt, the latest TCK drop from Oracle is 1.0.3, so I'd rather not move >>>> up until we have a newer TCK level that matches..... >>>> >>> >>> I'm fine with whatever the community decides, of course, but can you >>> explain the above? I'm afraid I don't understand... >>> >>> -Matt >>> >>>> >>>> -Donald >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/28/10 9:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> Author: mbenson >>>>> Date: Wed Sep 29 01:53:36 2010 >>>>> New Revision: 1002445 >>>>> >>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1002445&view=rev >>>>> Log: >>>>> upgrade to tck version 1.0.4.GA >>>>> >>>>> Modified: >>>>> incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml >>>>> >>>>> Modified: incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml >>>>> URL: >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml?rev=1002445&r1=1002444&r2=1002445&view=diff >>>>> ============================================================================== >>>>> --- incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml (original) >>>>> +++ incubator/bval/trunk/bval-tck/pom.xml Wed Sep 29 01:53:36 2010 >>>>> @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ >>>>> <dependency> >>>>> <groupId>org.hibernate.jsr303.tck</groupId> >>>>> <artifactId>jsr303-tck</artifactId> >>>>> - <version>1.0.3.GA</version> >>>>> + <version>1.0.4.GA</version> >>>>> </dependency> >>>>> <dependency> >>>>> <groupId>org.jboss.test-harness</groupId> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > >
