Hi, short update on this:
Collaborated with JL and exchanged some ideas via Slack. We now tested James + Greenmail as mail servers to rule out any hard- coded TCK assumption regarding James. Both fail with the same exception / issue on the same TCK mail: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/mail-tck/blob/2.0.0/tests/mailboxes/test1/9 The difference between the RI and our impl is basically the literal header: a5 APPEND test1 () "8-Dec-1996 15:30:12 +0100" {150432} a5 BAD APPEND failed. Illegal arguments. vs (RI): A6 APPEND test1 () "08-Dec-1996 15:30:12 +0100" {153113+} A6 OK [APPENDUID 466034631 1] APPEND completed. Copied 1 messages I pushed a configured Jakarta Mail TCK 2.0.1 setup with updated instructions into this repository: https://github.com/rzo1/mail-tck In addition, I am CC'ing the geronimo list, in case some people there have additional ideas. Otherwise, we will need to take a dive into the imap spec / server-side impl to get any clues :) Gruß Richard Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 19:46 +0000 schrieb Zowalla, Richard: > Hi, > > I spend some more time on the mail tck and got some additional > insights: > > There is one specific mail from the TCK mailbox (test1, mail no. 9), > which breaks the current Geronimo mail impl. This happens, if you try > to bootstrap / setup the test mailbox before running the TCK > according > ti their documentation. The same procedere just works, if the > reference > impl is used. > > The failing tests in the mail tck report similar issues regarding > failed IMAP commands. Therefore, I assume, that the underlying issue > is > similar, i.e. if we solve that, we likely fix some of the TCK tests > too. > > I added some instructions to > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835 to reproduce the > issue without actually running the TCK, so we might have the chance > to > debug it easily. > > Basically: > > - Checkout https://github.com/rzo1/geronimo-javamail/tree/tck-issues > - Follow the instructions in tck.adoc to start up a mail server > (docker-compose + docker exec) > - Run "fpopulate" with arguments "-s test1 -d > imap://user01%40james.local:1234@localhost:1143 -D" from within your > IDE > - Observe the debug output on the console > > > There is a difference between the message length between the RI and > the > Geronimo impl (as reported by the { } literal). This might be the > cause > (??), but I have no idea what is going on or why it is happening. > > Maybe someone has an idea what is going on here? Or has a pointer > where > to look at? I might be "lost in the tck madness" for today :) > > Gruß > Richard > > > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 17:13 +0000 schrieb Zowalla, Richard: > > To give a more detailed view / update from the spec tck party > > regarding > > activation and mail: > > > > (A) Geronimo Activation 2.0 > > > > After a first milestone (M1) and some additional fixes after > > running > > the activation TCK [1] and related signatures tests, we are now > > passing > > them. > > > > JL prepared a release artifact (1.0.0), which is currently under > > vote. > > > > During the tck work, we found some inconsistency / unspecified > > behaviour of "normalizeMimeTypeParameter" of ActivationDataFlavor. > > While this method is tested in the TCK on the basis of the > > reference > > implementation neither the spec itself nor the javadoc are really > > clear > > about the "right" return value. At the moment, we adjusted it to > > pass > > the TCK test in question. > > > > There is an ongoing discussion at dev@geronimo if this is a desired > > behaviour or if a system property should be introduced in order to > > reduce the possibility of breaking some users. > > > > (B) Geronimo Mail 2.0 / 2.1 > > > > The current mail impl has some TCK failures. It seems, that we need > > to > > do some additional work to get it compliant with the standalone > > mail > > tck [3]. > > > > The signature tests are failing for Java 11 but are fine with Java > > 8 > > [4] due to some usage of Object#finalize() and missing annotations > > (only available in Java 9+) in the Geronimo implementation. While > > it > > is > > not that important for EE9, we need to keep it in mind for EE10. > > > > We currently pass 166 out of 321 mail tck tests [5]. I guess, we > > need > > to give it some more love to get the numbers up and finally get it > > to > > pass the mail tck. The good thing is, that we already pass the > > javamail > > tests for TomEE [6]. > > > > Gruß > > Richard > > > > > > > > [1] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/activation/2.0/ > > [2] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/h8twm4rmdxt67fx227nyywjp96b6cky1 > > [3] https://jakarta.ee/specifications/mail/2.0/ > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6834 > > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-6835 > > [6] > > https://tck.work/tomee/tests?build=1651841331620&path=com.sun.ts.tests.javamail > > > > Am Dienstag, dem 24.05.2022 um 15:44 +0200 schrieb Jean-Louis > > Monteiro: > > > Alright, time for a new update. > > > > > > TomEE 8.x with JDK8 and EE8 is equivalent to TomEE 9.x with > > > JDK11/JDK17 and > > > EE9. > > > The build is still not full green, but it's time to start > > > grabbing > > > user > > > feedback as we discussed. > > > > > > So the work started to take every single piece we fixed or > > > patched > > > to > > > start > > > doing releases and if possible run TCK + signature Tests. > > > > > > David did activation and mail milestones. Richard used the > > > milestone > > > to fix > > > and we are now under vote for activation 2.0 final and Richard is > > > making > > > some awesomeness on the mail spec and impl. We should be able to > > > get > > > final > > > versions soon. > > > > > > We also have an OWB vote starting today for a jakarta compatible > > > version > > > (including TCK). > > > Next step is to release a milestone for jakartaee-api 9.1-M2 and > > > move > > > on. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:29 AM Wiesner, Martin < > > > martin.wies...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > Best > > > > Martin > > > > — > > > > https://twitter.com/mawiesne > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 11.05.2022 um 19:00 schrieb Cesar Hernandez < > > > > cesargu...@gmail.com > > > > <mailto:cesargu...@gmail.com>>: > > > > > > > > +1, Thank you! > > > > > > > > > > > > El mié, 11 may 2022 a las 9:06, Daniel Dias Dos Santos (< > > > > daniel.dias.analist...@gmail.com<mailto: > > > > daniel.dias.analist...@gmail.com>>) > > > > escribió: > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022, 12:00 Zowalla, Richard < > > > > richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de<mailto: > > > > richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I am fine with it: +1 > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Von: Jean-Louis Monteiro <jlmonte...@tomitribe.com<mailto: > > > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>> > > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2022 15:57:54 > > > > An: d...@tomee.apache.org<mailto:d...@tomee.apache.org> > > > > Betreff: Re: TomEE 9.x - from javax to jakarta namespace > > > > > > > > Alright, with the latest changes pushed yesterday and today, we > > > > are > > > > now > > > > at > > > > the exact same numbers for TomEE 8.x / Jakarta EE 8 under JDK8 > > > > and > > > > TomEE > > > > 9.x / Jakarta 9.1 under JDK17. > > > > > > > > If everyone is ok with it, we can create a new milestone and > > > > give > > > > users > > > > the > > > > opportunity to provide us with some feedback and to report > > > > bugs. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:06 PM David Blevins < > > > > david.blev...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Was checking out the TCK numbers this morning can make to > > > > suggest > > > > a > > > > 9.0.0-M8 while things look good and found this amazing email. > > > > > > > > The 9.0.x branch is looking absolutely amazing!!! > > > > > > > > What do we think about pushing out a 9.0.0-M8 while things are > > > > in > > > > their > > > > peak-stable state? I'm sure we'll have to rip up a few more > > > > things > > > > to > > > > finish off the remaining Jakarta EE and MP TCK issues. Would > > > > be > > > > great > > > > to > > > > have something that isn't M7 to fallback on as a reference > > > > point > > > > to > > > > track > > > > regressions. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 2022, at 3:56 AM, Jean-Louis Monteiro < > > > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com<mailto:jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Time for some reporting.... > > > > > > > > On our journey to migrate TomEE over from javax to jakarta > > > > namespace, > > > > we > > > > had many issues. > > > > After updating all our code, we had to do a bunch of dependency > > > > upgrades > > > > after upgrading many of them (OpenWebbeans, BVal, Geronimo, > > > > etc). > > > > > > > > We then faced many issues with non compatible libraries for > > > > example > > > > (ActiveMQ, commons-dbcp, CXF, sxc, taglib, etc). So we ended up > > > > repacking > > > > them in our own groupId after using the Maven Shade plugin to > > > > relocate > > > > the > > > > packages. > > > > > > > > We worked on BVal TCK and CDI TCK and we are close to passing > > > > them. > > > > > > > > But we had before to solve all our outdated MicroProfile 1.3 > > > > stack > > > > to > > > > the > > > > most recent and jakarta compatible version. Geronimo > > > > implementations > > > > being > > > > far being, we decided to use some SmallRye implementations > > > > until > > > > we > > > > can > > > > dedicate some time to update our Apache implementations > > > > (config, > > > > metrics, > > > > health, openapi, opentracing, fault tolerance). > > > > > > > > Our build is now more stable, but still not green. Some issues > > > > are > > > > basically easy to fix and most people could do it (examples for > > > > instance). > > > > > > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-full/ > > > > > > > > The integration for openapi, opentracing and fault tolerance is > > > > not > > > > done > > > > and we are far from passing the TCK. On config, metrics and > > > > health > > > > we > > > > are > > > > close. Same for our JWT implementation. > > > > > > > > I also wanted to have a view on the platform TCK, so I decided > > > > to > > > > stop > > > > TomEE work in order to spend time on the Platform TCK to do all > > > > dependency > > > > upgrades and get the TCK to run properly. I'm pleased to > > > > announce > > > > that > > > > after 2 weeks of hard work, we are 99% compatible > > > > > > > > https://tck.work/tomee/build?id=1652104572445 > > > > > > > > Thanks everyone for the help. > > > > Keep going and if you need some guidance or help, let us know. > > > > > > > > For coordination purposes, here is the issue > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3862 > > > > Many subtasks are there and you can create new tasks when > > > > needed > > > > and > > > > ask > > > > any committer to assign it to you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 11:13 AM Zowalla, Richard < > > > > richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes - we already yanked it in 9.x > > > > > > > > Gruß > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > Am Donnerstag, dem 05.05.2022 um 10:10 +0100 schrieb Jonathan > > > > Gallimore: > > > > Sounds good. I'll drop the transformer from the 8.x branch > > > > (looks > > > > like we > > > > don't use it in 9.x), and I'll create a single example to > > > > demonstrate > > > > it in > > > > a sandbox. > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 12:32 PM Zowalla, Richard < > > > > richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de<mailto: > > > > richard.zowa...@hs-heilbronn.de>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > You are right - we can remove it imho from 8.x as we do not > > > > test > > > > with > > > > it and the transformed samples might not even work, e.g. > > > > dependencies > > > > are not migrated, etc. > > > > > > > > +1 for providing a (bigger) example. > > > > > > > > Gruß > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 04.05.2022 um 11:17 +0100 schrieb Jonathan > > > > Gallimore: > > > > I've picked up a task related to the examples: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMEE-3873. I > > > > specifically > > > > went > > > > for > > > > this, as I added the Eclipse Transformer to the build for a > > > > number of > > > > examples in the past, back when we were doing the > > > > transformation > > > > process on > > > > TomEE itself. The drawbacks here is that any tests in the > > > > examples > > > > run on > > > > the javax code, and we just "assume" that the transformed > > > > artifact > > > > works. I > > > > would suggest removing that for the master build, as it just > > > > takes > > > > build > > > > time, and the examples should be transformed from javax to > > > > jakarta at > > > > source (if they aren't already). On the TomEE 8 build, we could > > > > select a > > > > few examples (no need to do them all) and find a way to run the > > > > tests > > > > on > > > > both javax and jakarta versions of TomEE. > > > > > > > > Additionally, it would likely be useful to add documentation to > > > > this. > > > > If we > > > > also wanted a bigger example application that specifically > > > > covers > > > > transformation, I could look at that too. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:58 PM Jean-Louis Monteiro < > > > > jlmonte...@tomitribe.com<mailto:jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I've been working for quite a long time on TomEE 9.x, and it's > > > > been > > > > more > > > > challenging and painful than I was expecting. I thought it > > > > would be > > > > good to > > > > give you some sort of status. > > > > > > > > I created a PR for the work. As a reminder, since Java EE moved > > > > to > > > > Eclipse > > > > to become Jakarta EE, we had a switch from javax.* namespace to > > > > jakarta.* > > > > namespace. This is an impacting change, since all applications > > > > and > > > > applications servers are built on top of it. > > > > > > > > In TomEE, we decided to do that change in TomEE. We had > > > > previously > > > > a > > > > bytecode change approach like an application could do. It > > > > worked > > > > and we > > > > were able to get certified. But it had a lot of limitations, so > > > > we > > > > had to > > > > do the migration in the code and fix all compatibility issues. > > > > > > > > Here is the PR https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/814 > > > > It has 90+ commits and nearly 5000 files touched (added, > > > > removed, > > > > updated). > > > > I understand it's a lot and it makes it almost impossible to > > > > review. But I > > > > did not see much approaches in this scenario to create smaller > > > > PRs. > > > > > > > > I created a Jenkins build though available at > > > > > > > > https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Tomee/job/master-build-quick-9.x/ > > > > > > > > It makes it possible to track the progress. There have been > > > > steps > > > > forward > > > > and steps backward. > > > > > > > > All the code does not sit under TomEE, we use a bunch of third > > > > party > > > > projects and libraries. I have been able to contribute, publish > > > > jakarta > > > > compatible versions and get releases for some of them (Jakarta > > > > EE > > > > APIs Uber > > > > jar, Geronimo Connectors and Transaction Manager, Geronimo > > > > Config, > > > > Health, > > > > Metrics, OpenTracing, OpenAPI. OpenJPA, BVal, and OpenWebBeans > > > > will > > > > be > > > > released soon. > > > > > > > > The big parts is CXF, and ActiveMQ. I had to get them done in > > > > TomEE > > > > and > > > > update all group/artifact ids. It's under deps, alongside with > > > > SXC, > > > > DBCP, > > > > and others. > > > > > > > > In terms of removal, I tried to remove old stuff like SAAJ Axis > > > > 1 > > > > integration, JAX RPC, Management J2EE and a couple of other old > > > > things. > > > > > > > > A lot of other libraries got updated to their latest version > > > > when > > > > available > > > > in the new jakarta namespace. > > > > > > > > I'm starting to get all the build stable and many modules are > > > > passing now, > > > > including all CXF webservices, OpenEJB Core, and others. I can > > > > get > > > > a build > > > > and run TomEE. > > > > > > > > Goal is to get a green build asap so we can start working on > > > > TCK. > > > > The "quick" build is now green. Working on the full build. > > > > > > > > I'll soon be creating a branch for TomEE 8.x maintenance and > > > > merge > > > > the PR. > > > > I'm hoping we can then have small PRs or at least more people > > > > working in > > > > parallel. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jean-Louis Monteiro > > > > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro > > > > http://www.tomitribe.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Atentamente: > > > > César Hernández. > > > > > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
