forgot to mention JIRA nos
1) OPENEJB-501
2) OPENEJB-505
3) OPENEJB-477
Regards
Manu
On 2/15/07, Manu George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ok I created the initial set. I have accidentaly duplicated the
following issues. Can u please delete them from the subtasks
iTest for Testing the javax.ejb.TransactionAttribute Annotation
iTest for Testing the javax.interceptor.ExcludeClassInterceptors Annotation
iTest for Testing the javax.annotation.PreDestroy Annotation
Regards
Manu
On 2/15/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 4:26 PM, Manu George wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry for being absent for some time ;) some hectic schedules and
> > travel kept me away.
>
> Sounds relaxing ;)
>
> > 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 .
>
> Yea, starting to think the same myself.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Go ahead! I think we've got a few covered already. Check out
> AnnotatedFieldInjectionStatefulBean and
> AnnotatedFieldInjectionStatelessBean
>
> JIRA away! Would be cool if you could duplicate the parent issue for
> implementing annotations and have it automatically duplicate all the
> child issues too. Then you could just update them to say "iTest:"
> But I'd be surprised if JIRA worked like that.
>
> /me lives in a fantasy world
>
> -David
>
> >
> > 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
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
>
