Ok, given that we're now nearly two weeks since I cut RC2, I'm going to cut RC3 later today, incorporating the changes we've discussed at https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/1.6.1%20Incubating%20Release%20Issues. I'm then going to call a 72 hour vote that will require 3 +1s from mentors, and I'm going to email each mentor personally to make sure they respond. =)
A. On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>wrote: > Test expectations, at least. A ton of tests started failing when I added > headers to those files. I don't know if there are functional problems too. > I'd ideally like to get that all straightened out in the next release, if > we can survive as is for 1.6.1. > > A. > On Jun 11, 2013 7:51 AM, "Tom White" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That makes a lot of sense - thanks for the explanation, Ignasi. >> >> There are other files in the test directory that should have headers >> added though, like the log4j.xml files. It would be easier to filter >> if the test expectation files were in an identifiable directory, e.g. >> src/test/resources/expected. That way when other files are added to >> the test hierarchy (that are not expectation files), then they won't >> be filtered inadvertently. This is probably not absolutely required >> for the first release though. >> >> Regarding the META-INF/services files - there are lots of these files >> in main that you should be able to add headers to using # as the >> comment character, see >> >> https://github.com/apache/whirr/blob/trunk/core/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.whirr.ClusterController >> . >> Is there any reason why headers can't be added to the test ones too? >> >> Cheers, >> Tom >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Ignasi <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Thanks for checking Tom! >> > >> > Please, apologize me if this has already been answered, but I am >> > really confused and I still don't get what should be done with the >> > headers in test files (and it is important to have it clear because it >> > affects what and how we can perform tests). >> > >> > I really think that XML files in src/test/resources should not have >> > test headers. As said in other threads, those XML files are used just >> > to verify the output of the cloud APIs. In clouds we have two kinds of >> > tests: >> > >> > * Expect tests (offline): These tests just mock the cloud apis, and we >> > use them to properly check that we are generating the requests as >> > expected, and we are properly parsing the responses. The XML/JSON >> > files in src/test/resources are just a copy of the real responses the >> > cloud apis return, and we use them to build the mock responses as >> > close to the reality as possible. >> > * Live tests (online): These tests actually execute the requests >> > against the cloud apis, and check the behavior against real cloud >> > providers. >> > >> > Having this clear, I think those XML/JSON files fail into the >> > "non-creative" category (they are just a copies of real http response >> > bodies). Furthermore, since the real cloud apis don't return an HTTP >> > response body with license headers, our "response templates" shouldn't >> > have them either. That's why we think it is important to keep those >> > files without the license headers; adding them will make it impossible >> > to properly add live tests that check the response bodies. >> > >> > >> > Does this make sense? If it does, can we keep JSON/XML files in the >> > src/test/resources directory without the license headers? >> > >> > >> > Thanks for your patience, mentors! >> > >> > >> > Ignasi >> > >> > >> > On 10 June 2013 19:56, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> And there are a good number of tests failing because XML files aren't >> >> expected to have headers. I'll see what I can do. >> >> >> >> A. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> >> >>> Also, if those don't full under the category of "non-creative", I >> don't >> >>> know what does. =) >> >>> >> >>> A. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Bayer < >> [email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Ok, the META-INF/services stuff will need at least test changes to >> work >> >>>> right with license headers added, if not full blown code changes, so >> that >> >>>> won't be happening. >> >>>> >> >>>> A. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Andrew Bayer < >> [email protected]>wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Will do. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> A. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Tom White <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> I ran through basic checks on the source packages (checksums, >> >>>>>> signatures, license headers, included binary files, LICENSE, >> NOTICE, >> >>>>>> DISCLAIMER), and generally they look good. In addition to the >> points >> >>>>>> made on >> >>>>>> >> https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/1.6.1%20Incubating%20Release%20Issues, >> >>>>>> the only thing I would add is that RAT flags up lots of missing >> >>>>>> license headers. Many of them are JSON which can be excluded since >> >>>>>> JSON doesn't support comments (as discussed above), or tests, but >> the >> >>>>>> META-INF/services, YAML, XML, and properties files should have >> license >> >>>>>> headers added for RC3 if possible. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Cheers, >> >>>>>> Tom >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Ignasi <[email protected]> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> > David, have you had a chance to take a look at my comments about >> the >> >>>>>> > json stuff? http://markmail.org/message/pk7efsmc6ewmake7 >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > I've also noted my doubts on the wiki so the conclusions for >> each one >> >>>>>> > can be reflected there. >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > On 5 June 2013 23:07, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> Dealt with for RC3, and noted on >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/1.6.1%20Incubating%20Release%20Issues >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> A. >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:40 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Andrew Bayer < >> >>>>>> [email protected]> >> >>>>>> >>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >>> > I'm extending the vote another 24 hours for our mentors to >> >>>>>> respond. >> >>>>>> >>> > >> >>>>>> >>> > A. >> >>>>>> >>> > >> >>>>>> >>> > >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> jclouds-karaf has both LICENSE and LICENSE.txt and I'd argue >> that >> >>>>>> >>> LICENSE.txt should be purged. Aside from that it looks in good >> >>>>>> shape. >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> --David >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >
