Hi Ralf, If you hadn't already seen this- here's a good doc http://tomee.apache.org/dev/writing-validation-tests.html
-Vishwa On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:38 AM, David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>wrote: > Thank you so much. You can thank Karan Malhi for a good chunk of that. > He did an amazing job creating a framework for testing the validations and > ensuring each message key is used properly and supports all three levels we > expect. > > I agree, it's some of the better code I've seen. > > > -David > > On Mar 21, 2013, at 12:40 PM, ralf.battenf...@bluewin.ch wrote: > > > Hi David and all contributors. I stepped into the section of the > validation implementation, tests and related source code. I never have seen > such a clear design. It is good understandible. > > > > I am impressed:-) > > > > Tx, Ralf > > > > > > On 21.03.13 08:42 dsh wrote: > > > > Thanks for the reminder Mark. Usually if things go well on IRC, somebody > > tells you immediately that design change stuff etc. should be posted to > the > > ML rather than discussing it online on IRC. So there are actually two > > safety ropes in regards to making sure everything is documented and thus > > transparent :) > > > > > > Cheers > > Daniel > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > wrote: > > > > > >> but just to be clear: IRC is a really good way to quickly get feedback. > >> But all the important decision making process and communication needs > to be > >> on the ASF mailing lists. > >> There is an old saying over here: "if it didn't happen on the mailing > >> list, it didn't happen" :) > >> > >> The reason is that IRC is not logged (because of a few good legal > reasons) > >> and the information is only available to a very few people who were > logged > >> in to the IRC. > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: dsh <strub...@yahoo.de> > >>> To: strub...@yahoo.de > >>> Cc: > >>> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 7:05 AM > >>> Subject: Re: IGood validation candidates: SubTask 39, 48 > >>> > >>> Hi Ralf, > >>> > >>> we are as well on freenode (IRC #openejb) just in case you prefer IRC > >> over > >>> email... > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> Daniel > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:37 PM, <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Daniel > >>>> > >>>> Thank you. Yes indeed, I meant David:-) Very kind that you replied. > >>>> > >>>> I can see many test cases for other validations tasks. These are good > >>>> starting points for me. Subtaks 48 is the one, I am considering to > >> work on, > >>>> after I understood the internals. I will ask you experts as soon as > >> they > >>>> arise. > >>>> > >>>> Tx, Ralf > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 20.03.13 20:32 dsh wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Ralf, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> thought I am going to answer this question, knowing that you probably > >> meant > >>>> David instead of Daniel ;) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I'd say if you like take both if they are available. That's really > >>> up to > >>>> your personal working style and how you like to sort out things. Don't > >>>> forget to ask questions as soon as they arise! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> Daniel > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:02 PM, strub...@yahoo.de < > >>>> strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Daniel > >>>>> > >>>>> Going though the list, I see the following validations as ideal > >>>> candidates > >>>>> for me:-) > >>>>> 39: Validation: > >>>>> @ConcurrencyManagement mistakenly used on non-Singleton > >>>>> 48: Validation: Field annotated with more than one injection; > >>>>> @EJB, @Resource, @PersistenceContext, @PersistenceUnit > >>>>> > >>>>> Shall I take one or both two and dig into the details? > >>>>> > >>>>> Ralf > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ----Ursprüngliche Nachricht---- > >>>>> Von: strub...@yahoo.de > >>>>> Datum: 20.03.2013 02:42 > >>>>> An: <strub...@yahoo.de>, <ralf. > >>>>> strub...@yahoo.de> > >>>>> Betreff: Re: Hello all together > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello, Ralf! > >>>>> > >>>>> Welcome aboard. We love having new people, > >>>>> especially ones that love OpenEJB :) > >>>>> > >>>>> Starting small is definitely the right approach. On project this > >> large > >>>>> that can > >>>>> still be pretty big, but hopefully we can find you something that > >>> fits. > >>>>> One area I think is always a good place for > >>>>> new help is the validation code: > >>>>> > >>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENEJB-453 > >>>>> > >>>>> There's always something to do there. Most of that code lives > >>>>> here: > >>>>> > >>>>> - > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENEJB-453 > >>>>> > >>>>> - > >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENEJB-453 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> That's probably not enough information to completely get started, > >>> but > >>>>> hopefully we can inch our way there. Do any of > >>>>> those validations look interesting to you? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -David > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mar 17, 2013, at 6:28 AM, strub...@yahoo.de wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Hi > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I recently subscribed myself to the dev list. I would love to > >>> help and > >>>>> contribute, especially for the OpenEJB > >>>>> part. > >>>>>> I work as a Java EE developer mainly on the backend side:-) > >>>>>> I am also contributing from time to time to the > >>>>> Shrinkwrap > >>>>>> Descriptor project. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I was looking at the OpenEJB JIRAs, probably the subtask JIRAs > >>> maybe > >>>>> candidates? > >>>>> As you wrote for > >>>>>> beginners, start small:-) If you have something to do, let me > >>> know. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> Ralf > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >
