Hi,
Sorry for being absent for some time ;) some hectic schedules and
travel kept me away.
Regarding the testing of annotated beans I have come up with the
following annotations that need tests(copied from from dave B's list).
I believe it will be simpler to have a few new EJB's and tests for
these instead of the approach I proposed previously which requires a
lot of redundant EJB's to be created .
javax.annotation.PostConstruct
javax.annotation.PreDestroy
javax.annotation.Resource
javax.annotation.Resources
javax.annotation.security.DeclareRoles
javax.annotation.security.DenyAll
javax.annotation.security.PermitAll
javax.annotation.security.RolesAllowed
javax.annotation.security.RunAs
javax.ejb.ActivationConfigProperty
javax.ejb.ApplicationException
javax.ejb.EJB
javax.ejb.EJBs
javax.ejb.Init
javax.ejb.Local
javax.ejb.LocalHome
javax.ejb.MessageDriven
javax.ejb.PostActivate
javax.ejb.PrePassivate
javax.ejb.Remote
javax.ejb.RemoteHome
javax.ejb.Remove
javax.ejb.Stateful
javax.ejb.Stateless
javax.ejb.Timeout
javax.ejb.TransactionAttribute
javax.ejb.TransactionManagement
javax.interceptor.AroundInvoke
javax.interceptor.ExcludeClassInterceptors
javax.interceptor.ExcludeDefaultInterceptors
javax.interceptor.Interceptors
javax.persistence.PersistenceContext
javax.persistence.PersistenceContexts
javax.persistence.PersistenceProperty
javax.persistence.PersistenceUnit
javax.persistence.PersistenceUnits
I have listed 36 annotations. They will need 36 tests for testing them
and 36 others for overrides with dd. I think this is the simplest way
to go ahead. I am thinking that first I will create a few annotated
EJB's in the existing itests to check out these scenarios. If this
approach is ok I can start raising JIRA's and working on the tests.
Regards
Manu
On 2/1/07, Manu George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok got it resolved pls ignore my prev mail
Regards
Manu
On 1/31/07, Manu George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I did some experimentation on this approach and came up with
> the following problem.
> Currently when the iTests are run for an application in the
> openejb-core module, there is an application.xml which gets loaded
> which has the element
>
> <module>
> <ejb>openejb-itests-beans-3.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar</ejb>
> </module>
>
> So when I try to run the annotated beans in the module
> openejb-itests-annotated-beans-3.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar
> by hiding the openejb-itests-beans I get an error saying the module
> openejb-itests-beans-3.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar cannot be loaded.
> Is there any way to work around this?
>
> Regards
> Manu
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/24/07, Manu George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes thats a good idea. I had forgotten about this :). Let me look into
> > creating a separate test suite for this
> >
> > Regards
> > Manu
> >
> > On 1/24/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Following up in this thread as I need to plug in some annotation
> > > based test into the itests as we are having some issues in the
> > > Geronimo integration that are nearly impossible to get working or
> > > ensure are working without actual annotations.
> > >
> > > We had discussed a separate test suite for annotated beans, which is
> > > still a good idea. I plan to make a purely annotated version of our
> > > jndi enc and field injection tests, I'll just put them in new classes
> > > next to the other tests. We can move them out later if we want to go
> > > ahead with the plan to test a completely ejb-jar.xml free set of itests.
> > >
> > >
> > > -David
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 26, 2006, at 6:48 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Manu,
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 23, 2006, at 2:04 AM, Manu George wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi David/Mohammad,
> > > >>
> > > >> What I was planning was to add annotated beans for each of the
> > > >> corressponding beans deployed using the deployment descriptor. Then
> > > >> execute all the test cases existing for the dd deployed beans for the
> > > >> annotated beans as well.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds great.
> > > >
> > > >> In addition to this we need to create new
> > > >> test cases for checking the overrides as well as the defaults(i.e.
> > > >> beans with the very minimum annotations. The unpecified config
> > > >> attributes should be substituted by defaults).
> > > >
> > > > Even with the override testing idea I posted before, we'll still
> > > > want a few beans and tests, so this is still a good idea.
> > > >
> > > >> I was thinking that if we can deploy the annotated ejbs with
> > > >> the same name as the dd based ones we can execute the existing tests
> > > >> as well. We will have the beans and remote interfaces extending from
> > > >> the existing ones as well.
> > > >
> > > > We don't have support for it yet, but we can use the mappedName
> > > > attribute of the @Stateful, @Stateless, or @MessageDriven
> > > > annotations to specify the OpenEJB deploymentId. We'll likely want
> > > > to start using the mappedName of some of the other annotations as
> > > > well. And we'll definitely want to document how we've allocated
> > > > the "mappedName" attributes of various annotations on the website
> > > > nice and clearly as it's vendor-specific. Maybe a table of some sort.
> > > >
> > > >> I plan to implement this by creating two new TestSuites
> > > >> corressponding to iTest and RemoteiTest namely AnnotatediTest and
> > > >> AnnotatedRemoteiTest. In iTest and RemoteiTest I will add the
> > > >> following system property
> > > >> System.setProperty("openejb.deployments.classpath.exclude",
> > > >> ".*openejb-itests-annotated-beans.*");
> > > >> This will prevent openejb from loading the descriptors in that
> > > >> directory and so the annotated beans.Similarly if I set the property
> > > >> to .*openejb-itests-beans.* in AnnotatediTests suite then the dd
> > > >> based
> > > >> beans won't be deployed. This will minimize the tests we need to
> > > >> write
> > > >> for annotated beans.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly what that's for! Though I'm beginning to think we should
> > > > add an "openejb.deployments.classpath.include" as well. Is this
> > > > something someone want's to add?
> > > >
> > > >> One issue I am not sure of here is even though we
> > > >> will have annotated business interfaces in the jar deployed in server
> > > >> the existing tests will use the parent interfaces only so we may need
> > > >> to create some tests with annotated interfaces used at client side.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure out that will play out either. We should be able to
> > > > get by, but there may be places we want tests dedicated to the
> > > > annotated beans/interfaces.
> > > >
> > > >> Now I may have been missing something when i came up with
> > > >> this approach and so it may not work. So I am looking for your
> > > >> comments poiniting out the issues with this approach. Better
> > > >> ideas,improvements and comments are welcome from anyone.
> > > >
> > > > You nailed it pretty well.
> > > >
> > > > One thing in general is that the field injection, setter injection,
> > > > EJBContext.lookup (no JIRA for this yet), and JNDI ENC lookup tests
> > > > are all going to doing pretty much the exact same things. It'd be
> > > > best if they were all as similar as possible. We have a test for
> > > > the JNDI ENC lookups on the types available in EJB 1.1 (needs to be
> > > > updated for EJB3 also).
> > > >
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openejb/trunk/openejb3/
> > > > itests/openejb-itests-beans/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/test/
> > > > stateless/EncStatelessBean.java
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/openejb/trunk/openejb3/
> > > > itests/openejb-itests-client/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/test/
> > > > stateless/StatelessJndiEncTests.java
> > > >
> > > > This may or may not be useful as a launching pad for the new
> > > > tests. We don't have to follow that style and we very well may
> > > > want to rewrite that test to follow the style of the new tests if
> > > > it turns out to be different.
> > > >
> > > > -David
> > > >
> > > >> Thanks
> > > >> Manu
> > > >>
> > > >> On 11/20/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>> On Nov 20, 2006, at 1:48 AM, Manu George wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > Hi David,
> > > >>> > Have you created the beans that we are going to test
> > > >>> > annotations? If not shall I go ahead and create the beans as
> > > >>> extending
> > > >>> > from the current test beans. I plan to create the session beans
> > > >>> > required for testing the annotations you have implemented.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Go for it!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You can throw everything into an itests/openejb-itests-annotated-
> > > >>> beans/ module.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Note sure just yet how we'll wire it in to run with the other tests.
> > > >>> If you have any ideas, I'm all ears.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -David
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
