Hi, Dan. Thanks for all the answers.
Regarding the JUnit, my vote would be for releasing it :-) It's really, really useful with current functionalities, validating all actions, beahviours, etc. from JUnit without effort. This "functionality" can give quite points to the framework to anyone evaluating it. This one is the only "bug" found until now. And it couldn't be considered as a bug, but an improvement over current functionality, if "wrapping" an object would mean only to "wrap" the Domain Object properties, and not the framework's related ones (such as if it's persisted). The problem is that, as it's not released, it's not present on any maven repository, and forces to download and compile the current snapshop, and install the junit viewer jar on the local maven repository. But I understand that you don't want to release it if big changes on its API are planned. But if finally it's released, an option would be to "mothball" it when the new Apache Isis testing framework that integrates JUnit and BDD functionalities will be released. Cheers, Oscar El 12/05/2013, a las 17:30, Dan Haywood <[email protected]> escribió: > Oscar, > This sounds like a bug. Perhaps raise a ticket for it? > > That said, I'm afraid I don't have the bandwidth at the moment to > investigate; as I said, my focus at the moment is making sure all the > formally released code is working well, and is why I'd rather not be > releasing the JUnit viewer yet. > > But if you are relying heavily on the JUnit viewer (as it looks like you > are), and you want to help take this forward to a formal release, then I'm > happy to explain the ideas I have for developing it, so you can take it > forward as a contribution back to Isis if you wish. > > Cheers > Dan > > > > > On 10 May 2013 19:43, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> I'm not sure if this is the expected behaviour while testing Domain >> Objects through the JUnit viewer. >> >> While doing tests over factory actions, one assert would be to verify the >> object has been persisted through the >> DomainObjectContainer.isPersistent(domainObject) method. >> >> If the evaluation is done over a wrapped object, it returns false. >> >> If it's done over the original object, it returns true. >> >> As an example: >> >> // Test if the Domain Object has been persisted. >> assertTrue(domainObjectContainer >> >> .isPersistent(communicationPathAssociatedWithNode)); >> >> // Node must be wrapped for the Apache Isis validators to >> be executed. >> communicationPathAssociatedWithNode = >> wrapped(communicationPathAssociatedWithNode); >> >> assertTrue(domainObjectContainer >> >> .isPersistent(communicationPathAssociatedWithNode)); >> >> >> The last assertion fails. The only difference I expected was the >> validation of the programming model. Is it correct? I'm sure there's >> anything I'm missing. >> >> Thanks in advance! >> >>
