which test is this exactly? LieGrue, strub
> On Saturday, 20 December 2014, 9:30, Romain Manni-Bucau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, not yet sure it is the tck issue. Seems we really have a bug with > addAnnotatedType forgetting to trigger some event (called too late to be > automatic). I ll try to have a look soon but wanted to understand the > "wording". > > Thks Mark > > Le 19 déc. 2014 23:19, "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> No this is perfectly fine. We discussed this recently and there was a bug >> in Weld. And I guess they just 1:1 moved this bug over to the TCK. >> >> >> "getAlternatives() returns the ordered list of enabled alternatives > for >> the application. Alternative enabled for a bean archive are not included in >> the list." >> >> Currently only Alternatives with @Priority are 'enabled alternatives > _for >> the application_'! Whereas "Alternative enabled for a bean > archive" (means >> via beans.xml) are explicitly NOT enlisted by this method. >> >> >> Similar wording exists for interceptors and decorators. >> >> >> Please file a CDITCK issue for it. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Friday, 19 December 2014, 19:20, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > Hi guys, >> > >> > is > org.apache.webbeans.config.BeansDeployer#fireAfterTypeDiscoveryEvent >> > is not correctly implemented? >> > >> > getXXX() should return "list of enabled XXX" but we return > only >> > @Priority ones + user should be allowed to remove items from the list >> > but we don't support it. >> > >> > did I misunderstand it? >> > >> > Romain Manni-Bucau >> > @rmannibucau >> > http://www.tomitribe.com >> > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com >> > https://github.com/rmannibucau >> > >> >
