Thanks Romain--that seems to have done it! We are green. :) Matt
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 3:17 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > Pushed an (hopefully) fix, no issue to revert if it didn't help - I didnt > patch the tck so there is still a small "?" to have some regression. > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/ > rmannibucau> | > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java- > ee-8-high-performance> > > 2018-04-19 8:42 GMT+02:00 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > > Will try to check today > > > > Le 19 avr. 2018 00:26, "Matt Benson" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > >> Hi all, > >> As of a few minutes ago our bv2 branch passes the 2.0 branch of the > TCK > >> with the PR from BVTCK-205 built in... with the exception of a single > >> test, org.hibernate.beanvalidation.tck.tests.bootstrap.BootstrapCo > >> nfigurationTest. > >> What seems to be happening here is that our CDI extension is more eager > >> than the TCK wants it to be: if no one has injected the default > >> ValidatorFactory or its Validator, the test seems to rely on the > >> extension's not attempting to instantiate it. My CDI-fu is pretty weak > if > >> anybody else wants to have a look at this. > >> > >> Matt > >> > > >
