Actually, I'll do this tomorrow - too many balls in the air here at work right now. =)
A. On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
