Thanks
Bruno Baptista
https://twitter.com/brunobat_
On 18/12/18 14:25, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
The one you are in charge ;):
https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/355
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 15:11, Bruno Baptista <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
Do you have a link?
Bruno Baptista
https://twitter.com/brunobat_
On 18/12/18 14:08, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Yes
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 14:10, Bruno Baptista <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
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>
