@Bruno: multiple tests are using the same bucket and each test assume it is resetted between them which is an assumption which is generally false.
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 16:09, Bruno Baptista <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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]> 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]> 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]> 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 >>>> 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> >>>> >>>>
