ping :D Am Fr., 7. Juni 2019 um 14:08 Uhr schrieb Thomas Andraschko < [email protected]>:
> Hi David, > > i worked together with Romain on the issue and already commited it. > > Our first idea was to just remove the constraint, if there is no matching > validator for the validated return type (void in your case). > This worked fine and fixed your example as the constraint was ignored. > The problem however is, that the TCK forces us to not remove the > constraint. > So our "solution" is now to validate the constraint when constructing > ReturnD and throw a exception, to indicate that there is no validator > and the constraint on the method doesn't make any sense. > > WDYT? > > Best regards, > Thomas > > > > Am Do., 23. Mai 2019 um 07:13 Uhr schrieb David Blevins < > [email protected]>: > >> > On May 22, 2019, at 12:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Have to admit i also see it as a good opportunity to enter the >> > codebase to maybe a good call for contribution ;) >> >> Agree. Also provides some potential way to add committers and future >> potential binding votes to help get releases out the door. >> >> Thomas, I gave you write permission to my bval fork so you can push >> commits into PR #3. You up for hacking on this together? >> >> - https://github.com/dblevins/bval/tree/bval-174-voidreturns >> >> I'm not going to have time till the TomEE 8.0.0-M3 release is out, but if >> you add Romain's test case I can rejoin the fun next week perhaps. If you >> are up for some pair-programming fun, just push commits right into the >> fork, no need to request a review. Yay the power of git :) >> >> >> -David >> >>
