[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-653?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12868996#action_12868996
]
Peter Dettman commented on JDO-653:
-----------------------------------
Yes, those tests currently fail against the reference implementation (DN 2.0.x).
I am looking firstly for confirmation that these failures represent violations
of the spec; see "11.4 Close the PersistenceManagerFactory"
(http://people.apache.org/~clr/jdo-2010-04-09.pdf).
Then it is my intention to patch the reference implementation to fix these
problems once I have that confirmation.
Obviously there are some interdependencies; I am unsure whether these test
cases must remain in limbo until the RI is fixed, or whether there is a
mechanism for known-failing tests to be added to the TCK.
> Extra checks in PMF.close tests
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: JDO-653
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-653
> Project: JDO
> Issue Type: Test
> Components: tck
> Affects Versions: JDO 2 maintenance release 2
> Reporter: Peter Dettman
> Assignee: Michelle Caisse
> Attachments: JDO-653-2nd.patch, JDO-653.patch
>
>
> Some of the implications of section 11.4 don't appear to be checked for in
> the case of an already-closed PersistenceManagerFactory.
> 1. If close() is called on an already-closed PMF (with correct permission
> i.e. "closePersistenceManagerFactory"), no exception should be thrown.
> 2. If close() is called on an already-closed PMF (without correct
> permission), exception should be thrown (even though it would otherwise do
> nothing).
> 3. If close() fails (throws JDOUserException) due to active transaction(s),
> then none of the PersistenceManager objects belonging to the PMF should have
> actually been closed.
> 4. Several get/set pairs are not tested for their behaviour after close()
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
