Is this a know bug registered somewhere?
Bruno Baptista
https://twitter.com/brunobat_
On 18/12/18 13:02, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
No, to the wrong assumption in terms if CDI exception in terms of
error during the deployment. The TCK felt in an unspecified area but
we applied the same workaround we have for CDI tck for both potential
exception in 2.0.9.
Other workarounds, as the circuit breaker bug in the TCK, are in scope
tests so we are good.
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>
Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:56, Bruno Baptista <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
Was it related to this fix?
https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
Cheers
Bruno Baptista
https://twitter.com/brunobat_
On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
Hi Romain,
I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in order to
pass the TCK:
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
Without that, we have these failures:
[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]
CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
serviceA should throw an Exception in
testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on iteration 5
[ERROR]
CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be fired on
iteration 1
[INFO]
[ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further details
on the nature of the leak and how the TCK can be improved? I
don't see a filed issue regarding this problem.
Cheers
Bruno Baptista
https://twitter.com/brunobat_
On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Hi guys,
as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
The staging repo is:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
<https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>075
My keys is still available in
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS
<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS>
Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3
binding +1s.
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>
