TinyBundle and BNDlib _were_ required as options in the test setup (@Configuration method) from what I could tell, or I got errors at runtime when the OSGi framework went looking for TinyBundle classes needed by the test resource bundle. Perhaps due to the asynchronous loading in that bundle? I will double-check, though.
I really like the idea of an includeMavenResources() option as you describe. That's exactly what I expected and wanted. If I understood more about how the test probe is built, I would offer to work on that now. But I can do that in the future, if it seems like that's the best plan. --- A. Soroka The University of Virginia Library > On Mar 8, 2017, at 4:13 AM, 'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think an option to include a resource into the test-probe is the most > generic, simple and natural way. For special and/or advanced usage szenarios > the tinybundle option can still be used. > Maybe it would even be possible to have (as an extra) some sort of > includeMavenResources() option that builds on top of this feature and fetches > all resources from scr/test/resources/ and includes them since that is what > one would exspect when working with maven. > > BTW: are TinyBundle and BND lib are really required in the test-runtime > (=Test Setup)? Normally they should only be needed on construction time > (=test classpath). > > Am 03.03.2017 19:41, schrieb [email protected]: >> This was a fantastic idea! Thank you, Christoph Läubrich. >> >> I ended up building a dynamic bundle using TinyBundle containing my test >> resources just the way I want them arranged, and injecting it like any other >> bundle. I use a symbolic name to pick it back up inside the container and >> use the resources. >> >> One note: I did need to put TinyBundle and BNDlib into the container to >> support my test resource bundle, but that wasn't a big deal. I will pack >> that part into a new Option or even pack the whole kit and kaboodle into a >> some kind of "TestResourceOption". Would this be a useful PR, or would folks >> rather have (as Christoph Läubrich mentions) the ability to directly include >> resources into the test probe (which does seem a bit simpler)? >> >> Thanks, OPS4J folks! >> >> > > -- > -- > ------------------ > OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - [email protected] > > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "OPS4J" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- -- ------------------ OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - [email protected] --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OPS4J" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
