Thanks for your fast repsonse, Thomas! It compiled because I cherry picked some changes from the previous EE- 10 branch in which the annoations were changed.
I just removed those tests. Gruß Richard Am Freitag, dem 06.10.2023 um 10:04 +0200 schrieb Thomas Andraschko: > Hi Richard, > > about JSF: > in theory it should not even compile, there is no "import > jakarta.faces.bean.ManagedBean" anymore. > You can just delete this 3 tests as it tests old JSF managed beans, > which > was completely removed. We just reuse CDI now. > > Best regards, > Thomas > > Am Fr., 6. Okt. 2023 um 09:18 Uhr schrieb Richard Zowalla > <r...@apache.org>: > > > I did some more work on the branch since this e-mail was sent. > > > > To get a working build, I did > > > > - (1) Upgrade a lot of dependencies to their newer counterpart > > (EE10 APIs, > > Tomcat, OWB, Johnzon, BatchEE, ...) > > > > - (2) Ignored / excluded examples with JAX-WS from the build (as > > CXF-4 > > can't handle it due to removals in Jakarta XML Binding) > > > > - (3) Excluded some tests related to JAX-WS in the arquillian part > > of the > > build for the same reason. > > > > Currently, it now shows the actual status regarding the OWB-4 / CDI > > upgrade. A PR is here: [1] > > > > I noticed, that it isn't as simply as upgrading step by step > > because you > > tend to jump into an API/impl nightmare. > > How do we want to go on from this point? The branch and changes are > > already quite big. > > > > Where help is very welcome: > > > > - (i) There are some JSF-related arquillian tests failing: > > > > - > > org.apache.openejb.arquillian.tests.jms.JMSInjectionTest.testJMSInj > > ection > > - > > org.apache.openejb.arquillian.tests.jsf.ejb.JSFInjectionTest.testEj > > bInjection > > - > > org.apache.openejb.arquillian.tests.jsf.resource.JSFResourceInjecti > > onTest.validResourceInjection > > > > Maybe Thomas can have a look here (or any other JSF expert ;-) ). > > I am > > asking, because he did the Faces 4 integration changes in a PR. > > > > - (ii) Somebody who has a (quick) look at the failing CDI tests. I > > don't > > know, if these tests are expected to fail as we didn't impl > > something or if > > it is just a setup thing. > > > > What do you think about: > > > > - Adding a profile for the CDI-TCK, so it doesn't necessarily break > > the > > build? That would be an option to get the current code to main and > > start to > > work on integrating the TCKs? > > > > Any other thoughts? > > > > Gruß > > Richard > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/1066 > > > > On 2023/10/03 05:18:26 Richard Zowalla wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > in the last few days I was trying to integrate the latest OWB 4 > > > release > > > within TomEE 10 (main). This included upgrading our API's to > > > match EE10 > > > and fix all the little runtime / compile issues. The actual work > > > is > > > done in my fork [3]. > > > > > > Long story short: > > > > > > - A current full build is here: [1] > > > > > > - There are a bunch of failing tests in the (new) CDI TCK. Might > > > be > > > actual issues with our impl or setup problems. Didn't look into > > > it yet > > (might be > > > better if someone with more CDI knowledge than me has a look), > > > because > > > I want to clarify how we want to proceed first. > > > > > > - The jaxws-related examples / arquilliam are because of the > > > removal of > > > jakarta.xml.bind.Validator in EE10 [2]. CXF4 isn't EE10 yet, so > > > this is > > > an expected limitation. > > > > > > - Some arquillian tests seem to fail due to JSP updates. Didn't > > > check > > Fürther yet for the reason above. > > > > > > - There are some other tests and examples failing because of the > > > owb / > > ee10 > > > upgrade, which might need a additional eyes. > > > > > > I am now wondering how we want to proceed with EE10 / main > > > branch? > > > > > > My branch [3] to go to OWB4 already contains a lot of changes > > > (sometimes derived from the bigger branch with commits from Jean- > > > Louis, > > > Jon and Thomas from a few months ago). > > > > > > If we move on like that, it will just become a huge burden or > > > even > > > impossible to review. > > > > > > Any thoughts on how we want to proceed with the EE10-work? > > > > > > Gruß > > > Richard > > > > > > [1] > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/pull-request-manual/37/ > > > [2] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/xml-binding/4.0/ > > > [3] https://github.com/rzo1/tomee/tree/owb4 > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
