Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.9.0 RC2

Hi +1 (binding) I checked; - signatures and hashes are fine - LICENSE and NOTICE are good - No unexpected binary files - Source files have ASF headers - Can compile from source I also checked the download page links and all good. I think the README ned to be updated re versions of java you need

Re: [GitHub] [plc4x] chrisdutz merged pull request #223: Updated Notice and License files.

Hi, I’ve nt taken a deep look at this but EPL licensed code isn’t allowed in a source release. [1] Thanks, Justin 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#weak-copyleft-licenses

Re: [VOTE] Rename our "master" branch to "release"

+1 a much better description of that branch

Re: [DISCUSS] Users page

Hi, Looks fine to me. Thanks, Justin

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.7.0 RC2

Hi, Congrats on the releases. > Also I would like to thank Otto for that -1 for RC1. I know that voting -1 > sometimes requires overcoming but it's important. > I would also like to encourage others to vote -1 if you really feel the need > to do so. Welcome to the club Otto :-) Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.7.0 RC2

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - signatures and hashes are fine - LICENSE and NOTICE are good - All source files have ASF headers - No unexpected binary files - Can compile from source Thanks, Justin

Re: Add a list of companies using PLC4X without links back?

HI, > It would really make sense to have this documented somewhere where everyone > can read it. I believe it on trademarks list to do. Thanks, Justin

Re: Add a list of companies using PLC4X without links back?

Hi, > But the text in the link actually says you have to be consistent ... not that > all links have to be no-follow. You need to rad elsewhere - see also this [1] Justin 1. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r68df1ac8c2895071ca81e5183ad181891c98bbe1e379488653568327%40%3Cprivate.incubator.a

Re: Add a list of companies using PLC4X without links back?

Hi, > Can you point to that policy? See [1] also see recent conversation re shardingshpere and trademarks/branding. Thanks, Justin 1. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking#projectthanks

Re: Add a list of companies using PLC4X without links back?

HI, > [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow#who-uses-apache-airflow Which as far as I can see doesn’t follow ASF policy - links need to be no-follow for starters. Thanks, Justin

Re: [GERMAN] PLC4X Webinar

Hi, > rather English Webinar (perhaps we have tot hink about timezones). > English subtitle on live video will be tough... don’t know if anybody here > can type that fast : D Well I’ve given talks that have been simultaneous;ly translated into another language live so it is possible. Thanks, J

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache PLC4X 0.6.0 RC2

Hi, > Do you still keep your -1 Justin under these circumstances? I can change my vote to a +1 (my -1 is not a veto btw) if you as release manager want to release this. If you prefer to fix the issues and make another RC that also fine by me, what do you want? Thanks,. Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache PLC4X 0.6.0 RC2

Hi, > I just had a look ... I couldn't find any code taken from the Milo project. > All I found was usage of milo libraries. > So as we are releasing sources, do we have to mention the Milo project in the > NOTICE at all? N you do not. Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache PLC4X 0.6.0 RC2

Hi, > However for the ConfigKeys and Config classes I think we could simply change > the header. If the contributors agree then you can change the headers, but this is not the major issue here, I’m more concerned by the Milo one. > As Dominik, from whom most of that code came in via PR, is no

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.6.0 RC2

Hi, Sorry but’s it -1 due to license. notice and licensing issues. May need a little discussion to sort out. I checked: - signatures and checksum fine - NOTICE mentions “This product includes software developed at The Milo project (https://github.com/eclipse/milo).” Why is this here? What cod

Re: [DISCUSS] Guideline for "professional support" Mentioning on Homepage

Hi, See [1] and in particular [2]. Note also how druid is not in line with [3] Thanks, Justin 1. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking#projectthanks 2. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking#productsupport 3. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/linking#whoweare

Re: [DISCUSS] Guideline for "professional support" Mentioning on Homepage

Hi, > as Lukas just opened up a discussion about mentioning commercial support on > the (new) PLC4X Homepage. > One Example where this is done is Apache Druid > (https://druid.apache.org/community/ see Getting Help). I dislike the Druid example as it shows who the committers are working for, t

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X Build-Tools Code-Generation 1.1.0 RC2

HI, +1 (binding) but the NOTICE year still needs updating. I checked: - signatures and hashes are fine - LICENSE is OK - NOTICE still need year updating - No unexpected binary files in the release - All source files have ASF headers - Can compile from source Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X Build-Tools Code-Generation 1.1.0 RC1

Hi, -1 (binding) as there is a compiled jar in the source release. [1] Chris where have I see this same issue before :-) I checked: - signatures and hashes are fine - LICENSE is OK - NOTICE need year updating - Unexpected binary fine in the release - All source files have ASF headers - Can com

Re: [DISCUSS] How to handle Docker?

HI, > Second thing is: > Do we want to distribute Docker images of things that need it? And if yes, > how do we do it correctly (Justin … this part of the question is generally > directed to you ;) ) Best guidelines we currently have is [1] Thanks, Justin 1. https://cwiki.apache.org/conflue

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.5.0 RC3

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - hashes and signatures correct - LICENSE and NOTICE file - All source files have ASF headers - No unexpected binary files - Can compile from source Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.5.0 RC2

Hi, -1 (binding) due to license issues. I checked: - signatures and hashes fine - LICENSE is missing license for these two files [1][2]. Does it come form here [3]? - LICENSE is missing license for this file [4] (and rat clearly shows this) - no unexpected binary files - all source files have AS

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X Build-Tools Code-Generation 1.0.0 RC3

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - signatures and hashes are good - LICENSE and NOTICE fine - All source files have ASF headers - No binary files - can compile from source The mvnw information belongs in LICENSE not NOTICE so is correct in this release. In general all license information go in LICENSE

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X Build-Tools Code-Generation 1.0.0 RC2

Hi, > I copied the LICENSE from plc4x into the plc4x-build-tools and didn't notice > the end at first. I gather this is not going to be released that often(/). If so it might be best to fix this so the LICENSE is correct. Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X Build-Tools Code-Generation 1.0.0 RC2

Hi, > But as far as I know there's no Netty in the plugin… Then why is it mentioned in LICENSE? Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X Build-Tools Code-Generation 1.0.0 RC2

Hi, -1 (binding) as NOTICE file is missing information I checked: - signatures and hashes fine - LICENSE is OK - NOTICE need some more work(see below) - No unexpected binary files - All source files have ASF headers - Can compile from source Netty has a NOTICE file [1] so relevant portions of th

Re: [VOTE] Accept CRUNCH as subproject for PLC4X

HI, +1 from me. Thanks, Justin

Re: How about adding PLC4X Swag to the Apache redbubble store?

+1

Re: [Draft] July Board Report

HI, > I just added a new board report draft here: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/PLC4X/2019-July BTW Confluence now has a markdown plugin if you want to use that. Justin

Re: [REPORT] June Board Report draft

Hi, I think some of those start are not needed or you could just say “mailing list and JIRA activity has doubled in the last 3 months”, would would be more interesting to the board is to know if that growth was from committers or new people. Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache PLC4X 0.4.0 RC1

Hi, > JMH is used to microbenchmark the protocol stack. Currently it is only > implemented for ADS. > As these licenses habe a classpath exception they should be safe to use. > Pretty sure we checked this with legal back then (thus the XML commemts) It’s an optional dependanc, that is seem no o

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.4.0 RC1

Hi, +1 (binding) I should of added. Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache PLC4X 0.4.0 RC1

Hi, These ones from ./plc4j/protocols/benchmarks/pom.xml

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X 0.4.0 RC1

Hi, I checked: - no incubating in name or DISCLAIMER file - signatures and hashes correct - LICENSE and NOTICE fine - no unexpected binary files - all source files have ASF headers - can compile from source One very minor thing copyright in [1] should be updated to 2019 Thanks, Justin 1. ./src

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache PLC4X 0.4.0 RC1

Hi, I notice the pom includes GPL dependancies, it seems that they are optional and only used for running the tests. Is this correct? Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache PLC4X 0.4.0 RC1

Hi, Should src/site be in the release? Thanks, Justin

Re: Apache PLC4X Meetup and Top Level Party in Frankfurt

Hi, Have fun and congratulations! Sorry but it’s a little far for me being in Australia. Thanks, Justin

Re: Being inclusive...

Hi, > It seems that referring to the rest of the team as "guys", even if > technically being gender neutral, is perceived as sexist and to be less > welcoming to female and other gender people by a lot of people. It a bit more nuanced than that, the word is just not an inclusive word and there

Re: [DriverGen] Possible solution for type inheritance

Hi, > 2016 version of BACnet ASN.1 with comments, but not all enumerations is > 4600 lines long. I'm writing all this to add additional edge cases which > we will need to cover - with DFDL or any other tool. It won't be easy > neither way! I worked with ASN.1 (and BER) in the past. ASN is

Re: Approaching the European Commission for some help?

Hi, Don’t forget about the AU? :-) Justin

Re: [generation] Another approach to generated drivers

Hi, > But, I guess we get rid of the discussion if we do the following > - generate a PLC4X branch where all the development takes place (=> > everything is ASF licensed) > - keep the paper source in the separate repo and, if necessary, reference > code snippets from PLC4X Repo (with clear licen

Re: [generation] Another approach to generated drivers

Hi, > some clarification... this repo currently hosts two things... some code > snippets (really messy) and the draft version for the paper (like really > really early draft). If any of the code appears in the paper and is not clearly licensed under a compatible license then it’s unlikely PLC4

Re: [generation] Another approach to generated drivers

Hi, > And for the private Repo... It also felt wrong for me to write this. And > strictly speaking its not a PLC4X Paper but a Paper which "talks about" > PLC4X. The main reason for the private repo are license concerns as the > authors usually have to hand over several rights to the Publisher

Incubator questionnaire

Hi, Given you've just graduated, congratulations are in order. If you could take the time file to fill out this short questionnaire on your incubator journey and how you think the incubating process could be improved it would be greatly appreciated. How do you think things could be improved? h

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apache PLC4X (incubating) to become a Top-Level-Project at the ASF

Hi, +1 (binding) + good luck! Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Send Code Review mails to commits@

Hi, +1 to that. Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Defining the initial PMC/Committers for graduation

+1

Re: [DISCUSS] Start voting on graduating?

Hi, > Having gone through Justin's link to the Apache maturity model [1] I guess we > are on an extremely good path (Keep in mind this is not a maturity model for > incubator projects, but all Apache projects) Also keep in mind that a) the maturity model is not a requirement to graduation but

Re: [DISCUSS] Start voting on graduating?

Hi, > I'll work on the issues reported in [2] ... didn't know about that page … Nothing major from what I can see but IMO the trademark notice in the footer need updating. Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Start voting on graduating?

Hi, You may want to fill out this [1] it ’s not required but can give you a good idea if you are ready to graduate. I'd also check the the website re trademarks and branding and that it has all needed links. [2] Thanks, Justin 1. https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X (Incubating) 0.3.0 RC1

Hi, A -1 vote on a release is not a veto, you should wait and see what other PPMC members think, you can also try and convince the person to change their vote. Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache PLC4X (Incubating) 0.3.0 RC1

Hi, > I just checked the RELEASE_NOTES and saw that I never changed the > "(Unreleased) 0.3.0". > Is this a problem for the release and does this justify -1 vote? No a hug issue IMO, just fix it in the next release. Thanks, Justin

Re: Hardening our build ... what I learnt

Hi, It’s develop for me as well and I’m upto date: Here some more info on the error I’m seeing: Caused by: org.apache.maven.plugin.MojoExecutionException: Unable to create features.xml file: java.io.IOException: Is a directory at org.apache.karaf.tooling.features.GenerateDescriptorMojo

Re: Hardening our build ... what I learnt

Hi, > Are these fixed only in develop or also in the RC? > And if so, do you think we are ready for an RC? > Otherwise you or I could cherry pick your fixes over. One of the steps required in reviewing a release is that the source package need to compile suscessfully, if it doesn’t it may not pa

Re: Hardening our build ... what I learnt

Hi, I’m still seeing an issue on OSX but it’s getting further than before: [INFO] Integrations: Apache Karaf: ADS FAILURE [ 1.144 s] [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.karaf.tooling:karaf-maven-plugin:4.2.1:features-generate-descriptor (generate-features-file) on

Re: Scraper tests failing on Windows machines ...

Hi, > I can see a lot of “Unable to instantiate connection to mock:scraper” > messages. And a lot of PlcConnectionException with the message “stfu” (we > should use a little milder wording here, I think) What’s wrong with "Say, Thanks for Understanding”? :-) Thanks, Justin

Re: Trouble building on OSX

Hi Chris, here’s the failing test: [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin:2.22.0:test (default-test) on project plc4j-driver-modbus: There are test failures. [ERROR] [ERROR] Please refer to /Users/justinmclean/incubator-plc4x/plc4j/drivers/modbus/target/s

Trouble building on OSX

Hi, Trying to build develop branch on OSX 10.14.1 Java 1.8.0_171-b11 Maven 3.3.9. I’m getting a number of issues when trying to do this: "mvn compile" gives: [INFO] karaf-ads-feature .. FAILURE [ 0.369 s] [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.karaf.tooling:k

Re: Anyone interested in becoming a Release-Manager?

Hi, > as I already stated somewhere in chats, I would volunteer as RM. No need to fight over it :-) > I should have a signed apache key, I think (was not all synced the last time > we checked). While it helps it’s not a requirement for making a release. Thanks, Justin

Re: Anyone interested in becoming a Release-Manager?

HI, > well I guess this would require a bit more setting up as you are not yet an > official committer. > So deploying the artifacts to the ASF Nexus will be a problem. IMO It’s not a big issue as a PMC member can do that for him. Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X (Incubating) 0.2.0 RC1

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - incubating in name - signature and hashes good - LICENSE and NOTICE have some issues than need to be fix in the next release - No unexpected binary files - All ASF files have ASF headers You are missing LICENSE / NOTICE info for Netty [1][2][3][4][5] I’m not sure i

Re: [WARNING] Please don't commit anything to `master` effective immediately

Hi, And for whats it is worth I’m not a big fan of the “methodology’ as it tends to create long lived branches and merge issues. Thanks, Justin

Re: [WARNING] Please don't commit anything to `master` effective immediately

Hi, > Is it safe/ok to "borrow" those images? From a quick glance no, you would need to ask for permission. Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache PLC4X (Incubating) 0.2.0 RC1

Hi, Having one header wrong is not the end of the world, and as an incubating project you have a DISCLAIMER for that reason. I’d continue with the vote. Thanks, Justin

Re: Cleaning up in the examples and adding a Mqtt example

Hi, > I just wanted to tell you that today I took the liberty to clean up our > pretty messy examples a little. > Also I added a version of a MQTT connector example that pumps data from a plc > to an MQTT broker. > Generally this could use MQTT5, but it’s set to MQTT3 for now. I’m not run into

Re: Happy birthday Toddy!

Congratulations and have a nice day PLC4X :-) On Wed., 17 Oct. 2018, 12:40 am Christofer Dutz, wrote: > Happy birthday Toddy! > > Today, one year ago, I did the first commit and look at us now! Wow ... > Going strong and stronger every day. > > So happy the days are over, where I was talking to

Re: [DRAFT] Oktober Podling Report Apache PLC4X (incubating)

Hi, Sorry I missed this, although I guess Is know the answer. You neglected to answer this question in the report: Have your mentors been helpful and responsive or are things falling through the cracks? In the latter case, please list any open issues that need to be addressed. Can you please d

Re: [DRAFT] Oktober Podling Report Apache PLC4X (incubating)

Hi, All good by me, a couple of (very) minor things below. > Make our first release You done this so no need to list it? > While the community activity had been quite low since the beginning of the > project, things changed in August. > Then we noticed not only new names appearing on the list,

Re: Missing board report

Dutz" : > > Yup ... I'm on it ... > > Just wanted to have the first release out the door and other things > done first. > Will take care of this in the next one or two days. > > Chris > > Am 30.09.18, 15:36 schrieb "Justin Mclean&qu

Missing board report

Hi, The incubator PMC would appreciated if you could complete the podling report on time. It takes time to prepare the incubator report, have your mentors sign off the report and for the board to review it, in order for all that to happen the report is due on Wednesday. Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache PLC4X (Incubating) 0.1.0

Hi, > * It looks as if plc4x-parent-0.1.0-rc2 was the git tag for the RC as it > matches the source zip (which misses the .gitignore but includes an > extra DEPDENDENCIES file, BTW). The name looks a little strange, is > this going to be "fixed" for the final release? As tags change be changed

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache PLC4X (Incubating) 0.1.0

HI, > * do the RELEASE_NOTES require an incubation disclaimer? No that should be in DISCLAIMER and on the website, having it there as well wouldn’t hurt but it’s not required. Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache PLC4X (Incubating) 0.1.0 RC2

Hi, +1 (binding) IMO There’s some license/notice issues that need to be fixed for the next release. I checked: - incubating in name - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE need some work (see below) - No unexpected binary fines - All source files have ASF headers -

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache PLC4X (Incubating) 0.1.0

Hi, Well strictly speaking it’s only the incubator PMC vote that are binding as you vote on it here first and then the IPMC votes on it. Once you graduate then there’s the PMC votes are binding. Thanks, Justin

Re: (PGP Key Signing) Re: Meetup in Nürtingen on 20.09.2018

Hi, > And I just noticed, when writing the release-documentation we should do > a PGP Keysigning session at the meetup. Good idea. > Apache Releases are built around PGP keys. However currently I would be the > only one able to do a release as I'm the only one who has a key signed by > o

Re: Recent additions to PLC4X (Goolge IoT cloud Example, Kafka-Connect integration, Test-Driver)

Hi, > Thank you two very much for these great additions. As Veronika and Andrey > both work for codecentric, they did this during their work hours and we have > a signed CCLA, I think there is no need for any ICLA signing on her side (is > that correct?) CCLA is more for the company not the co

Re: ASF Slack

I could be mistaken but I think anyone can join or be invited On Wed., 29 Aug. 2018, 8:41 am Julian Feinauer, < j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de> wrote: > Hi Benedikt, > > > > I think ist a good idea to have a slack for communication but I agree that > its a bit inelegant to require an apache email a

Making your first release

Hi, While looking through the incubator reports it’s come to my attention that this podling hasn’t made a release yet and has been in the incubator for 250+ days. "Release early and release often” should be the guideline to follow. What is holding up this project making it first release? Remem

Re: [VOTE] Change the format of the S7 Adresses

Hi, +1 I think lazy consensus could of work find here and there no need for a vote, but as it was called it seems a good idea to me. Thanks, Justin

Re: Code-Retreat on Mallorca?

Hi, Can’t promise I’m make it at this point (given it’s the other side of the world) but it sounds like a fun idea. Thanks, Justin

Re: Refactoring the PLC4X Subscription API?

Go for it On Fri., 6 Jul. 2018, 7:43 pm Christofer Dutz, wrote: > Ok, > > > > I am interpreting the silence as consent and will do the changes I > proposed. > > > > Chris > > > > > > Am 03.07.18, 13:57 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" : > > > > Hi all, > > > > now digging into the subscription

Re: [DRAFT] July Podling Report Apache PLC4X (incubating)

Looks good to me > On 29 Jun 2018, at 12:45 am, Christofer Dutz > wrote: > > Hope I didn’t miss anything … also hope this time I didn’t put in things the > board isn’t interested in. > > > --- > > Apache PLC

Re: VPN access to PLC

Hi, > If you are interested in getting an account please respond to this thread. > I’ll order the accounts some time at the beginning of next week. Count me in! Justin

Re: Test-Setup

Hi, Sound like a great idea to me. Thanks, Justin

Re: [DRAFT] March Podling Report PLC4X

Hi, Yep I’ve been following along as well :-) Justin

Re: My Edgent and PLC4X Article on the Cover-Page

Hi, > today I bought the magazine with my Article and was totally amazed that it > has become one of the cover-page articles :-) They didn’t send you a free copy? :-) Congratulations, well done and keep up the good work, any chance of an english translation? Thanks, Justin

Re: Podling Report Reminder - March 2018

Hi, > So just in case it wasn't submitted, this is the text that should have been > submitted Sorry I told Chis I was going to submit it and it fell off my plate, it’s submitted now. If the other Mentors could sign off on it that would be great. Thanks, Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Thinking of a first release?

Hi, > not having implemented the PDU Fragmentation will cause problems with the > driver in real world scenarios (more than 15 addresses requested form the plc) How often would a user run into this in the real world? If that that frequent we may not need it for a 0.1 (or whatever we name it) r

Re: [DRAFT] February Podling Report PLC4X

Hi, Look good to me. Justin

Re: 235 warnings

Hi, > I'd be inclined to do a bunch of the cleanup myself if I had some degree of > confidence that the project was committed to their elimination. A project > policy of not delivering code that adds more is sufficient IMO (not sure > tooling enforcement is necessary). Can IntelliJ be configur

Re: 235 warnings

Hi, > Sonar[1] reports 158 code smells but those don’t seem to include any of the > categories of the 235 noted below. Not sure what to make of that. It could be that some rules have been turned off? I’m also seeing some sonar cube one that are legitimate issues but nothing too serious. Some o

Re: 235 warnings

Hi, > On the current “master” branch, Eclipse 4.6.3 (with std Error/Warning > preference config) and java 1.8.0_161, Eclipse reports 235 warnings. The bulk > of these seem to be Raw type and Type safety warnings. Are there plans for > dealing with these? I guess you are project the only perso

Re: [incubator-plc4x] branch master updated: Fix the ByteValueTest

Hi, > I extended the test with duplicated hex variants to better visualize the > boundaries: > @Test > public void checkUnsignedBoundsLongHex() { >// Hex representation to visualize valid bounds in bytes >ByteValue.checkUnsignedBounds(0x0_00_00, 2); >ByteValue.checkUnsignedBounds(0x0_

Re: tests and coverage

Hi, > I don’t think its a issue of focus rather than time and resources (at least > in my case) Fair enough and as I said we have tests (with reasonable coverage) and that's a good thing. > My intention was to bring the ADS branch to master a soon as possible to > encourage contribution (see

Re: [incubator-plc4x] branch master updated: Fix the ByteValueTest

Hi, > Ok ... if the max value is outside the bounds and the code should have thrown > an error, then I apologize. No issue. Looking again at it I’m still not sure which bit or code or test is wrong or perhaps neither(?) but I think it should be consistent. Perhaps Sebastian has a better idea?

Re: [incubator-plc4x] branch master updated: Fix the ByteValueTest

Hi, Perhaps my email wasn’t clear. The error is not in the test the error is in the code the test was showing that. :-) Thanks, Justin > On 22 Feb 2018, at 1:55 am, cd...@apache.org wrote: > > This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository. > > cdutz pushed a commit to bra

Re: WET vs DRY tests

Hi, > Have to agree that I am having problems to understand what the thing does. > But that might be related to me not having had my first coffee if the day yet > ;-) Once you look at the code it’s testing it become clearer but the mental effort required seem a bit high for a simple test. Othe

tests and coverage

Hi, It looks to me that some of the tests are just here to increase coverage and we seem to be missing unit test for some of the more simple classes. Perhaps there’s a bit too much focus on the happy path and we’re not always checking boundary conditions and the like. Obviously this is a good s

WET vs DRY tests

Hi, Was just looking at some of the new tests and just wondering if they are trying to be a bit too clever? What do other people think? For instance this: @Test public void testOfWintime() throws Exception { assumeThat(clazz, isOneOf(TimeStamp.class)); { Method ofMethod = clazz.

Does this seem odd to you?

Hi, It's a very minor thing I know but I just came access this: public static TpduSize valueForGivenSize(int pduSize) { if(pduSize < 0) { throw new IllegalArgumentException("PduSize has to be greater than 0"); } assert pduSize > 0; And have a few questions: -

  1   2   >