Romain, That issue does not seem to affect the failing tests.

Can you please elaborate the problem with the 2 CircuitBreaker tests?

Bruno Baptista
https://twitter.com/brunobat_


On 18/12/18 14:27, Bruno Baptista wrote:

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>

Reply via email to