Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

Or just compile it yourself from source:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomee/javaee-api/trunk

LieGrue,
strub



> Am 16.02.2018 um 07:41 schrieb Mark Struberg :
> 
> I think we did, but I probably did not deploy our javaee-api yet.
> 
> Started the deploy jus tnow.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
>> Am 16.02.2018 um 07:14 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
>> 
>> Dont think our ee api has upgraded to
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jaxrs_2.1_spec/
>> yet since we didnt have cxf 3.2.
>> 
>> Le 16 févr. 2018 00:49, "Jonathan Gallimore" 
>> a écrit :
>> 
>>> Ok, locally (with the merge), I get test errors due
>>> to: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
>>> javax/ws/rs/client/CompletionStageRxInvoker. Possibly a bad javaee
>>> dependency or something. I'll do a compare tomorrow and try and get that
>>> resolved, and get my changes pushed.
>>> 
>>> Jon
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Mark Struberg 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 PS: xbean-asm6 is needed for java9 support.
 Already using it in OWB and Meecrowave without any problems.
 So all should work fine.
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
 
> Am 15.02.2018 um 19:20 schrieb Mark Struberg  :
> 
> oki great, I've just upgraded to tomcat-9.0.5 and right now upgrading
>>> to
 xbean-asm6-shaded.
> Will ping you once done.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
>> Am 15.02.2018 um 18:27 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
 jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
>> 
>> We definitely need a tomee-7 branch. I have done a merge of master to
 the
>> tomee8_fb branch, and I'm making sure it builds and tests pass etc,
 before
>> pushing.
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Mark Struberg
 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> probably a good idea.
>>> 
>>> A tomee7 release should still be cut. But that could be done on a
 tomee7.x
>>> branch as well
>>> 
>>> Will create a separate thread.
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 15.02.2018 um 18:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
 rmannibu...@gmail.com
 :
 
 and probably switch the branch. master doesnt get much activity and
>>> in
>>> any
 case all the activity it gets can be done on the 8 branch
 
 
 Romain Manni-Bucau
 @rmannibucau  |  Blog
  | Old Blog
  | Github >> rmannibucau> |
 LinkedIn  | Book
 >> ee-8-high-performance>
 
 2018-02-15 18:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg >>> :
 
> and now we should be passing both the tck/cdi-embedded and
>>> tck/cdi-tomee!
> 
> So it's time to move forward to updating various dependencies,
 samples
>>> etc
> ;)
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
>> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Mark Struberg
 > :
>> 
>> Really appreciated, thanks Jon!
>> 
>> Due to the upgrade to Tomcat-9 we also might have to fix a few
>>> other
> tests along the line.
>> I mainly focused on the CDI TCK for now as this is naturally the
 area
> where I can be of most use.
>> I'll also gonna release OWB tonight or so. Just wanted to first
>>> fix
 the
> TomEE tck to really catch all odds in OWB.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:06 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
>>> 
>>> At the risk of adding to my ever-growing task list and
>>> potentially
> becoming
>>> a bottleneck, I did some EAR / RAR related fixes in master. I'll
 port
> those
>>> forward and help look at these tests.
>>> 
>>> Jon
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Mark Struberg
> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
 And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee.
 
 
 
 
 
 Those tests are all EAR related.
 Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
 
 
> Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg
>  :
> 
> Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in
 the
 Servlet spec.
> 
> We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But
>>> there
 is
>>> no
 such event in the CDI spec so far.
>>>

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

I think we did, but I probably did not deploy our javaee-api yet.

Started the deploy jus tnow.

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 16.02.2018 um 07:14 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> Dont think our ee api has upgraded to
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jaxrs_2.1_spec/
> yet since we didnt have cxf 3.2.
> 
> Le 16 févr. 2018 00:49, "Jonathan Gallimore" 
> a écrit :
> 
>> Ok, locally (with the merge), I get test errors due
>> to: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
>> javax/ws/rs/client/CompletionStageRxInvoker. Possibly a bad javaee
>> dependency or something. I'll do a compare tomorrow and try and get that
>> resolved, and get my changes pushed.
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Mark Struberg 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> PS: xbean-asm6 is needed for java9 support.
>>> Already using it in OWB and Meecrowave without any problems.
>>> So all should work fine.
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 15.02.2018 um 19:20 schrieb Mark Struberg >>> :
 
 oki great, I've just upgraded to tomcat-9.0.5 and right now upgrading
>> to
>>> xbean-asm6-shaded.
 Will ping you once done.
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
 
> Am 15.02.2018 um 18:27 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
>>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
> 
> We definitely need a tomee-7 branch. I have done a merge of master to
>>> the
> tomee8_fb branch, and I'm making sure it builds and tests pass etc,
>>> before
> pushing.
> 
> Jon
> 
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Mark Struberg
>>> 
> wrote:
> 
>> probably a good idea.
>> 
>> A tomee7 release should still be cut. But that could be done on a
>>> tomee7.x
>> branch as well
>> 
>> Will create a separate thread.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 15.02.2018 um 18:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com
>>> :
>>> 
>>> and probably switch the branch. master doesnt get much activity and
>> in
>> any
>>> case all the activity it gets can be done on the 8 branch
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>>>  | Old Blog
>>>  | Github > rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn  | Book
>>> > ee-8-high-performance>
>>> 
>>> 2018-02-15 18:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg >> :
>>> 
 and now we should be passing both the tck/cdi-embedded and
>> tck/cdi-tomee!
 
 So it's time to move forward to updating various dependencies,
>>> samples
>> etc
 ;)
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Mark Struberg
>>>  :
> 
> Really appreciated, thanks Jon!
> 
> Due to the upgrade to Tomcat-9 we also might have to fix a few
>> other
 tests along the line.
> I mainly focused on the CDI TCK for now as this is naturally the
>>> area
 where I can be of most use.
> I'll also gonna release OWB tonight or so. Just wanted to first
>> fix
>>> the
 TomEE tck to really catch all odds in OWB.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
>> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:06 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
 jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
>> 
>> At the risk of adding to my ever-growing task list and
>> potentially
 becoming
>> a bottleneck, I did some EAR / RAR related fixes in master. I'll
>>> port
 those
>> forward and help look at these tests.
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Mark Struberg
 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
>>> And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Those tests are all EAR related.
>>> Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg
 >>> :
 
 Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in
>>> the
>>> Servlet spec.
 
 We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But
>> there
>>> is
>> no
>>> such event in the CDI spec so far.
 The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for
>> _destroyal_.
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
> Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> 
> Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed
>>> y

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Dont think our ee api has upgraded to
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/trunk/geronimo-jaxrs_2.1_spec/
yet since we didnt have cxf 3.2.

Le 16 févr. 2018 00:49, "Jonathan Gallimore" 
a écrit :

> Ok, locally (with the merge), I get test errors due
> to: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
> javax/ws/rs/client/CompletionStageRxInvoker. Possibly a bad javaee
> dependency or something. I'll do a compare tomorrow and try and get that
> resolved, and get my changes pushed.
>
> Jon
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
>
> > PS: xbean-asm6 is needed for java9 support.
> > Already using it in OWB and Meecrowave without any problems.
> > So all should work fine.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > > Am 15.02.2018 um 19:20 schrieb Mark Struberg  > >:
> > >
> > > oki great, I've just upgraded to tomcat-9.0.5 and right now upgrading
> to
> > xbean-asm6-shaded.
> > > Will ping you once done.
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >
> > >> Am 15.02.2018 um 18:27 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
> > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >> We definitely need a tomee-7 branch. I have done a merge of master to
> > the
> > >> tomee8_fb branch, and I'm making sure it builds and tests pass etc,
> > before
> > >> pushing.
> > >>
> > >> Jon
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Mark Struberg
> > 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> probably a good idea.
> > >>>
> > >>> A tomee7 release should still be cut. But that could be done on a
> > tomee7.x
> > >>> branch as well
> > >>>
> > >>> Will create a separate thread.
> > >>>
> > >>> LieGrue,
> > >>> strub
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >  Am 15.02.2018 um 18:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibu...@gmail.com
> >  :
> > 
> >  and probably switch the branch. master doesnt get much activity and
> in
> > >>> any
> >  case all the activity it gets can be done on the 8 branch
> > 
> > 
> >  Romain Manni-Bucau
> >  @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >   | Old Blog
> >   | Github  > >>> rmannibucau> |
> >  LinkedIn  | Book
> >   > >>> ee-8-high-performance>
> > 
> >  2018-02-15 18:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg  >:
> > 
> > > and now we should be passing both the tck/cdi-embedded and
> > >>> tck/cdi-tomee!
> > >
> > > So it's time to move forward to updating various dependencies,
> > samples
> > >>> etc
> > > ;)
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Mark Struberg
> >  > >> :
> > >>
> > >> Really appreciated, thanks Jon!
> > >>
> > >> Due to the upgrade to Tomcat-9 we also might have to fix a few
> other
> > > tests along the line.
> > >> I mainly focused on the CDI TCK for now as this is naturally the
> > area
> > > where I can be of most use.
> > >> I'll also gonna release OWB tonight or so. Just wanted to first
> fix
> > the
> > > TomEE tck to really catch all odds in OWB.
> > >>
> > >> LieGrue,
> > >> strub
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:06 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
> > > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
> > >>>
> > >>> At the risk of adding to my ever-growing task list and
> potentially
> > > becoming
> > >>> a bottleneck, I did some EAR / RAR related fixes in master. I'll
> > port
> > > those
> > >>> forward and help look at these tests.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jon
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Mark Struberg
> > > 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
> >  And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee.
> > 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 
> >  Those tests are all EAR related.
> >  Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?
> > 
> >  LieGrue,
> >  strub
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg
> > >  > > :
> > >
> > > Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in
> > the
> >  Servlet spec.
> > >
> > > We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But
> there
> > is
> > >>> no
> >  such event in the CDI spec so far.
> > > The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for
> > >>> _destroyal_.
> > >
> > > LieGrue,
> > > strub
> > >
> > >> Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >  rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >> Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed
> > you
> > >>> can
> >  still
> > >> want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where
> both
> > >>> 

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Jonathan Gallimore]

Ok, locally (with the merge), I get test errors due
to: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
javax/ws/rs/client/CompletionStageRxInvoker. Possibly a bad javaee
dependency or something. I'll do a compare tomorrow and try and get that
resolved, and get my changes pushed.

Jon

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> PS: xbean-asm6 is needed for java9 support.
> Already using it in OWB and Meecrowave without any problems.
> So all should work fine.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 15.02.2018 um 19:20 schrieb Mark Struberg  >:
> >
> > oki great, I've just upgraded to tomcat-9.0.5 and right now upgrading to
> xbean-asm6-shaded.
> > Will ping you once done.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >> Am 15.02.2018 um 18:27 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> We definitely need a tomee-7 branch. I have done a merge of master to
> the
> >> tomee8_fb branch, and I'm making sure it builds and tests pass etc,
> before
> >> pushing.
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Mark Struberg
> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> probably a good idea.
> >>>
> >>> A tomee7 release should still be cut. But that could be done on a
> tomee7.x
> >>> branch as well
> >>>
> >>> Will create a separate thread.
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  Am 15.02.2018 um 18:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com
>  :
> 
>  and probably switch the branch. master doesnt get much activity and in
> >>> any
>  case all the activity it gets can be done on the 8 branch
> 
> 
>  Romain Manni-Bucau
>  @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>   | Old Blog
>   | Github  >>> rmannibucau> |
>  LinkedIn  | Book
>   >>> ee-8-high-performance>
> 
>  2018-02-15 18:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> 
> > and now we should be passing both the tck/cdi-embedded and
> >>> tck/cdi-tomee!
> >
> > So it's time to move forward to updating various dependencies,
> samples
> >>> etc
> > ;)
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Mark Struberg
>  >> :
> >>
> >> Really appreciated, thanks Jon!
> >>
> >> Due to the upgrade to Tomcat-9 we also might have to fix a few other
> > tests along the line.
> >> I mainly focused on the CDI TCK for now as this is naturally the
> area
> > where I can be of most use.
> >> I'll also gonna release OWB tonight or so. Just wanted to first fix
> the
> > TomEE tck to really catch all odds in OWB.
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:06 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
> > jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> At the risk of adding to my ever-growing task list and potentially
> > becoming
> >>> a bottleneck, I did some EAR / RAR related fixes in master. I'll
> port
> > those
> >>> forward and help look at these tests.
> >>>
> >>> Jon
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Mark Struberg
> > 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
>  And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee.
> 
>  
>  
>  
> 
>  Those tests are all EAR related.
>  Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?
> 
>  LieGrue,
>  strub
> 
> 
> 
> > Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg
> >  > :
> >
> > Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in
> the
>  Servlet spec.
> >
> > We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But there
> is
> >>> no
>  such event in the CDI spec so far.
> > The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for
> >>> _destroyal_.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >> Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>  rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed
> you
> >>> can
>  still
> >> want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where both
> >>> cases
>  are
> >> desirable (i want to clean up related state of the session...as
> >>> well
> > as
>  I
> >> don't want to touch the session)...
> >>
> >> Since the appcontext destroy can be used as a workaround I
> think it
> > is
>  fine
> >> to challenge them now.
> >>
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >>  | Old Blog
> >> 

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

PS: xbean-asm6 is needed for java9 support. 
Already using it in OWB and Meecrowave without any problems.
So all should work fine.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 15.02.2018 um 19:20 schrieb Mark Struberg :
> 
> oki great, I've just upgraded to tomcat-9.0.5 and right now upgrading to 
> xbean-asm6-shaded.
> Will ping you once done.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
>> Am 15.02.2018 um 18:27 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore 
>> :
>> 
>> We definitely need a tomee-7 branch. I have done a merge of master to the
>> tomee8_fb branch, and I'm making sure it builds and tests pass etc, before
>> pushing.
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Mark Struberg 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> probably a good idea.
>>> 
>>> A tomee7 release should still be cut. But that could be done on a tomee7.x
>>> branch as well
>>> 
>>> Will create a separate thread.
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 15.02.2018 um 18:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau >>> :
 
 and probably switch the branch. master doesnt get much activity and in
>>> any
 case all the activity it gets can be done on the 8 branch
 
 
 Romain Manni-Bucau
 @rmannibucau  |  Blog
  | Old Blog
  | Github >> rmannibucau> |
 LinkedIn  | Book
 >> ee-8-high-performance>
 
 2018-02-15 18:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
 
> and now we should be passing both the tck/cdi-embedded and
>>> tck/cdi-tomee!
> 
> So it's time to move forward to updating various dependencies, samples
>>> etc
> ;)
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
>> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Mark Struberg > :
>> 
>> Really appreciated, thanks Jon!
>> 
>> Due to the upgrade to Tomcat-9 we also might have to fix a few other
> tests along the line.
>> I mainly focused on the CDI TCK for now as this is naturally the area
> where I can be of most use.
>> I'll also gonna release OWB tonight or so. Just wanted to first fix the
> TomEE tck to really catch all odds in OWB.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:06 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
>>> 
>>> At the risk of adding to my ever-growing task list and potentially
> becoming
>>> a bottleneck, I did some EAR / RAR related fixes in master. I'll port
> those
>>> forward and help look at these tests.
>>> 
>>> Jon
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Mark Struberg
> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
 And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee.
 
 
 
 
 
 Those tests are all EAR related.
 Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
 
 
> Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg
>  :
> 
> Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in the
 Servlet spec.
> 
> We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But there is
>>> no
 such event in the CDI spec so far.
> The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for
>>> _destroyal_.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
>> Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
 rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
>> 
>> Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed you
>>> can
 still
>> want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where both
>>> cases
 are
>> desirable (i want to clean up related state of the session...as
>>> well
> as
 I
>> don't want to touch the session)...
>> 
>> Since the appcontext destroy can be used as a workaround I think it
> is
 fine
>> to challenge them now.
>> 
>> 
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>>  | Old Blog
>>  | Github  |
>> LinkedIn  | Book
>> 
>> 
>> 2018-02-08 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg > :
>> 
>>> Yea, it's mainly testing whether the @Observes @BeforeDestroyed(
 SessionScoped.class)
>>> and @Destroyed(SessionScoped.class) do work.
>>> The tests itself are fine, but instead of relying that the
>>> sessions
> get
>>> destroyed at server shutdown they could also have used
>>> Session.

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

oki great, I've just upgraded to tomcat-9.0.5 and right now upgrading to 
xbean-asm6-shaded.
Will ping you once done.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 15.02.2018 um 18:27 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore 
> :
> 
> We definitely need a tomee-7 branch. I have done a merge of master to the
> tomee8_fb branch, and I'm making sure it builds and tests pass etc, before
> pushing.
> 
> Jon
> 
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
> 
>> probably a good idea.
>> 
>> A tomee7 release should still be cut. But that could be done on a tomee7.x
>> branch as well
>> 
>> Will create a separate thread.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 15.02.2018 um 18:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau >> :
>>> 
>>> and probably switch the branch. master doesnt get much activity and in
>> any
>>> case all the activity it gets can be done on the 8 branch
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>>>  | Old Blog
>>>  | Github > rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn  | Book
>>> > ee-8-high-performance>
>>> 
>>> 2018-02-15 18:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
>>> 
 and now we should be passing both the tck/cdi-embedded and
>> tck/cdi-tomee!
 
 So it's time to move forward to updating various dependencies, samples
>> etc
 ;)
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Mark Struberg  :
> 
> Really appreciated, thanks Jon!
> 
> Due to the upgrade to Tomcat-9 we also might have to fix a few other
 tests along the line.
> I mainly focused on the CDI TCK for now as this is naturally the area
 where I can be of most use.
> I'll also gonna release OWB tonight or so. Just wanted to first fix the
 TomEE tck to really catch all odds in OWB.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
>> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:06 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
 jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
>> 
>> At the risk of adding to my ever-growing task list and potentially
 becoming
>> a bottleneck, I did some EAR / RAR related fixes in master. I'll port
 those
>> forward and help look at these tests.
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Mark Struberg
 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
>>> And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Those tests are all EAR related.
>>> Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg
 >>> :
 
 Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in the
>>> Servlet spec.
 
 We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But there is
>> no
>>> such event in the CDI spec so far.
 The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for
>> _destroyal_.
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
> Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> 
> Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed you
>> can
>>> still
> want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where both
>> cases
>>> are
> desirable (i want to clean up related state of the session...as
>> well
 as
>>> I
> don't want to touch the session)...
> 
> Since the appcontext destroy can be used as a workaround I think it
 is
>>> fine
> to challenge them now.
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github >> rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> >> ee-8-high-performance>
> 
> 2018-02-08 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg  :
> 
>> Yea, it's mainly testing whether the @Observes @BeforeDestroyed(
>>> SessionScoped.class)
>> and @Destroyed(SessionScoped.class) do work.
>> The tests itself are fine, but instead of relying that the
>> sessions
 get
>> destroyed at server shutdown they could also have used
>> Session.invalidate()...
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com
>>> :
>>> 
>>> 2018-02-08 11:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg
>>  :
>>> 
 All the embedded tests are now green.
 
 I'm now w

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Jonathan Gallimore]

We definitely need a tomee-7 branch. I have done a merge of master to the
tomee8_fb branch, and I'm making sure it builds and tests pass etc, before
pushing.

Jon

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> probably a good idea.
>
> A tomee7 release should still be cut. But that could be done on a tomee7.x
> branch as well
>
> Will create a separate thread.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> > Am 15.02.2018 um 18:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau  >:
> >
> > and probably switch the branch. master doesnt get much activity and in
> any
> > case all the activity it gets can be done on the 8 branch
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >  | Old Blog
> >  | Github  rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn  | Book
> >  ee-8-high-performance>
> >
> > 2018-02-15 18:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> >
> >> and now we should be passing both the tck/cdi-embedded and
> tck/cdi-tomee!
> >>
> >> So it's time to move forward to updating various dependencies, samples
> etc
> >> ;)
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Mark Struberg  >>> :
> >>>
> >>> Really appreciated, thanks Jon!
> >>>
> >>> Due to the upgrade to Tomcat-9 we also might have to fix a few other
> >> tests along the line.
> >>> I mainly focused on the CDI TCK for now as this is naturally the area
> >> where I can be of most use.
> >>> I'll also gonna release OWB tonight or so. Just wanted to first fix the
> >> TomEE tck to really catch all odds in OWB.
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
> >>>
>  Am 15.02.2018 um 11:06 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
> >> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
> 
>  At the risk of adding to my ever-growing task list and potentially
> >> becoming
>  a bottleneck, I did some EAR / RAR related fixes in master. I'll port
> >> those
>  forward and help look at these tests.
> 
>  Jon
> 
>  On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Mark Struberg
> >> 
>  wrote:
> 
> > We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
> > And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee.
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> > Those tests are all EAR related.
> > Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >> Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg
> >>  >> :
> >>
> >> Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in the
> > Servlet spec.
> >>
> >> We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But there is
> no
> > such event in the CDI spec so far.
> >> The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for
> _destroyal_.
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>> Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed you
> can
> > still
> >>> want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where both
> cases
> > are
> >>> desirable (i want to clean up related state of the session...as
> well
> >> as
> > I
> >>> don't want to touch the session)...
> >>>
> >>> Since the appcontext destroy can be used as a workaround I think it
> >> is
> > fine
> >>> to challenge them now.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >>>  | Old Blog
> >>>  | Github  > rmannibucau> |
> >>> LinkedIn  | Book
> >>>  > ee-8-high-performance>
> >>>
> >>> 2018-02-08 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg  >>> :
> >>>
>  Yea, it's mainly testing whether the @Observes @BeforeDestroyed(
> > SessionScoped.class)
>  and @Destroyed(SessionScoped.class) do work.
>  The tests itself are fine, but instead of relying that the
> sessions
> >> get
>  destroyed at server shutdown they could also have used
>  Session.invalidate()...
> 
>  LieGrue,
>  strub
> 
> 
> > Am 08.02.2018 um 11:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> > rmannibu...@gmail.com
> > :
> >
> > 2018-02-08 11:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg
>  >>> :
> >
> >> All the embedded tests are now green.
> >>
> >> I'm now working on cdi-tomes (webprofile TCK).
> >> So far we have 10 errors, but a few TCK tests are broken because
> >> they
> >> wrongly assume that a container stop also kills the Session.
> >>
> >
> > We can make them passing. We already did this k

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

probably a good idea. 

A tomee7 release should still be cut. But that could be done on a tomee7.x 
branch as well

Will create a separate thread.

LieGrue,
strub



> Am 15.02.2018 um 18:11 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> and probably switch the branch. master doesnt get much activity and in any
> case all the activity it gets can be done on the 8 branch
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> 
> 
> 2018-02-15 18:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> 
>> and now we should be passing both the tck/cdi-embedded and tck/cdi-tomee!
>> 
>> So it's time to move forward to updating various dependencies, samples etc
>> ;)
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>>> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Mark Struberg >> :
>>> 
>>> Really appreciated, thanks Jon!
>>> 
>>> Due to the upgrade to Tomcat-9 we also might have to fix a few other
>> tests along the line.
>>> I mainly focused on the CDI TCK for now as this is naturally the area
>> where I can be of most use.
>>> I'll also gonna release OWB tonight or so. Just wanted to first fix the
>> TomEE tck to really catch all odds in OWB.
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 15.02.2018 um 11:06 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
>> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
 
 At the risk of adding to my ever-growing task list and potentially
>> becoming
 a bottleneck, I did some EAR / RAR related fixes in master. I'll port
>> those
 forward and help look at these tests.
 
 Jon
 
 On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Mark Struberg
>> 
 wrote:
 
> We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
> And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those tests are all EAR related.
> Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg
>> > :
>> 
>> Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in the
> Servlet spec.
>> 
>> We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But there is no
> such event in the CDI spec so far.
>> The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for _destroyal_.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>>> Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
>>> 
>>> Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed you can
> still
>>> want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where both cases
> are
>>> desirable (i want to clean up related state of the session...as well
>> as
> I
>>> don't want to touch the session)...
>>> 
>>> Since the appcontext destroy can be used as a workaround I think it
>> is
> fine
>>> to challenge them now.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>>>  | Old Blog
>>>  | Github  rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn  | Book
>>>  ee-8-high-performance>
>>> 
>>> 2018-02-08 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg >> :
>>> 
 Yea, it's mainly testing whether the @Observes @BeforeDestroyed(
> SessionScoped.class)
 and @Destroyed(SessionScoped.class) do work.
 The tests itself are fine, but instead of relying that the sessions
>> get
 destroyed at server shutdown they could also have used
 Session.invalidate()...
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
 
> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com
> :
> 
> 2018-02-08 11:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg >> :
> 
>> All the embedded tests are now green.
>> 
>> I'm now working on cdi-tomes (webprofile TCK).
>> So far we have 10 errors, but a few TCK tests are broken because
>> they
>> wrongly assume that a container stop also kills the Session.
>> 
> 
> We can make them passing. We already did this kind of hack but
>> since
> all
> container have pluggability here - for good reasons - I agree they
> shouldn't be in the TCK.
> 
> 
>> I've challenged those tests. Still have to review every red
>> test...
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:19 schrieb Matthew Broadhead <
>> matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>:
>>> 
>>> nearly there!
>>> 
>>> On 07/02/2

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

and probably switch the branch. master doesnt get much activity and in any
case all the activity it gets can be done on the 8 branch


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book


2018-02-15 18:05 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :

> and now we should be passing both the tck/cdi-embedded and tck/cdi-tomee!
>
> So it's time to move forward to updating various dependencies, samples etc
> ;)
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 15.02.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Mark Struberg  >:
> >
> > Really appreciated, thanks Jon!
> >
> > Due to the upgrade to Tomcat-9 we also might have to fix a few other
> tests along the line.
> > I mainly focused on the CDI TCK for now as this is naturally the area
> where I can be of most use.
> > I'll also gonna release OWB tonight or so. Just wanted to first fix the
> TomEE tck to really catch all odds in OWB.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:06 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore <
> jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> At the risk of adding to my ever-growing task list and potentially
> becoming
> >> a bottleneck, I did some EAR / RAR related fixes in master. I'll port
> those
> >> forward and help look at these tests.
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Mark Struberg
> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
> >>> And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee.
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> Those tests are all EAR related.
> >>> Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg
>   :
> 
>  Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in the
> >>> Servlet spec.
> 
>  We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But there is no
> >>> such event in the CDI spec so far.
>  The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for _destroyal_.
> 
>  LieGrue,
>  strub
> 
> > Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed you can
> >>> still
> > want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where both cases
> >>> are
> > desirable (i want to clean up related state of the session...as well
> as
> >>> I
> > don't want to touch the session)...
> >
> > Since the appcontext destroy can be used as a workaround I think it
> is
> >>> fine
> > to challenge them now.
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >  | Old Blog
> >  | Github  >>> rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn  | Book
> >  >>> ee-8-high-performance>
> >
> > 2018-02-08 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg  >:
> >
> >> Yea, it's mainly testing whether the @Observes @BeforeDestroyed(
> >>> SessionScoped.class)
> >> and @Destroyed(SessionScoped.class) do work.
> >> The tests itself are fine, but instead of relying that the sessions
> get
> >> destroyed at server shutdown they could also have used
> >> Session.invalidate()...
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >>> rmannibu...@gmail.com
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>> 2018-02-08 11:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg  >:
> >>>
>  All the embedded tests are now green.
> 
>  I'm now working on cdi-tomes (webprofile TCK).
>  So far we have 10 errors, but a few TCK tests are broken because
> they
>  wrongly assume that a container stop also kills the Session.
> 
> >>>
> >>> We can make them passing. We already did this kind of hack but
> since
> >>> all
> >>> container have pluggability here - for good reasons - I agree they
> >>> shouldn't be in the TCK.
> >>>
> >>>
>  I've challenged those tests. Still have to review every red
> test...
> 
>  LieGrue,
>  strub
> 
> 
> > Am 08.02.2018 um 11:19 schrieb Matthew Broadhead <
>  matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>:
> >
> > nearly there!
> >
> > On 07/02/2018 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >> [ERROR] Failures:
> >> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> >> arquillianBeforeClass:109
>  » Deployment
> >> [INFO]
> >> [ERROR] Tests run: 1567, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5
> >>
> >>
> 

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

and now we should be passing both the tck/cdi-embedded and tck/cdi-tomee!

So it's time to move forward to updating various dependencies, samples etc ;)

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:42 schrieb Mark Struberg :
> 
> Really appreciated, thanks Jon!
> 
> Due to the upgrade to Tomcat-9 we also might have to fix a few other tests 
> along the line. 
> I mainly focused on the CDI TCK for now as this is naturally the area where I 
> can be of most use.
> I'll also gonna release OWB tonight or so. Just wanted to first fix the TomEE 
> tck to really catch all odds in OWB.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
>> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:06 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore 
>> :
>> 
>> At the risk of adding to my ever-growing task list and potentially becoming
>> a bottleneck, I did some EAR / RAR related fixes in master. I'll port those
>> forward and help look at these tests.
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Mark Struberg 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
>>> And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Those tests are all EAR related.
>>> Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg >>> :
 
 Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in the
>>> Servlet spec.
 
 We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But there is no
>>> such event in the CDI spec so far.
 The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for _destroyal_.
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
> Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> 
> Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed you can
>>> still
> want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where both cases
>>> are
> desirable (i want to clean up related state of the session...as well as
>>> I
> don't want to touch the session)...
> 
> Since the appcontext destroy can be used as a workaround I think it is
>>> fine
> to challenge them now.
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github >> rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> >> ee-8-high-performance>
> 
> 2018-02-08 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> 
>> Yea, it's mainly testing whether the @Observes @BeforeDestroyed(
>>> SessionScoped.class)
>> and @Destroyed(SessionScoped.class) do work.
>> The tests itself are fine, but instead of relying that the sessions get
>> destroyed at server shutdown they could also have used
>> Session.invalidate()...
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com
>>> :
>>> 
>>> 2018-02-08 11:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
>>> 
 All the embedded tests are now green.
 
 I'm now working on cdi-tomes (webprofile TCK).
 So far we have 10 errors, but a few TCK tests are broken because they
 wrongly assume that a container stop also kills the Session.
 
>>> 
>>> We can make them passing. We already did this kind of hack but since
>>> all
>>> container have pluggability here - for good reasons - I agree they
>>> shouldn't be in the TCK.
>>> 
>>> 
 I've challenged those tests. Still have to review every red test...
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
 
> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:19 schrieb Matthew Broadhead <
 matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>:
> 
> nearly there!
> 
> On 07/02/2018 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> [ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
>> [INFO]
>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1567, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5
>> 
>> 
>> Wohuuu, 1 to go!
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>>> Am 02.02.2018 um 21:54 schrieb Mark Struberg
>>  :
>>> 
>>> And the last status:
>>> 
>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
>>> [ERROR]   ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntime
>>> InvocationTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
>>> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
 interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true]
>>> but
 found [false]
>>> [INFO]
>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1570, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
>>>

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

Really appreciated, thanks Jon!

Due to the upgrade to Tomcat-9 we also might have to fix a few other tests 
along the line. 
I mainly focused on the CDI TCK for now as this is naturally the area where I 
can be of most use.
I'll also gonna release OWB tonight or so. Just wanted to first fix the TomEE 
tck to really catch all odds in OWB.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 15.02.2018 um 11:06 schrieb Jonathan Gallimore 
> :
> 
> At the risk of adding to my ever-growing task list and potentially becoming
> a bottleneck, I did some EAR / RAR related fixes in master. I'll port those
> forward and help look at these tests.
> 
> Jon
> 
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
> 
>> We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
>> And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Those tests are all EAR related.
>> Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg >> :
>>> 
>>> Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in the
>> Servlet spec.
>>> 
>>> We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But there is no
>> such event in the CDI spec so far.
>>> The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for _destroyal_.
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
 Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
 
 Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed you can
>> still
 want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where both cases
>> are
 desirable (i want to clean up related state of the session...as well as
>> I
 don't want to touch the session)...
 
 Since the appcontext destroy can be used as a workaround I think it is
>> fine
 to challenge them now.
 
 
 Romain Manni-Bucau
 @rmannibucau  |  Blog
  | Old Blog
  | Github > rmannibucau> |
 LinkedIn  | Book
 > ee-8-high-performance>
 
 2018-02-08 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
 
> Yea, it's mainly testing whether the @Observes @BeforeDestroyed(
>> SessionScoped.class)
> and @Destroyed(SessionScoped.class) do work.
> The tests itself are fine, but instead of relying that the sessions get
> destroyed at server shutdown they could also have used
> Session.invalidate()...
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
>> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibu...@gmail.com
>> :
>> 
>> 2018-02-08 11:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
>> 
>>> All the embedded tests are now green.
>>> 
>>> I'm now working on cdi-tomes (webprofile TCK).
>>> So far we have 10 errors, but a few TCK tests are broken because they
>>> wrongly assume that a container stop also kills the Session.
>>> 
>> 
>> We can make them passing. We already did this kind of hack but since
>> all
>> container have pluggability here - for good reasons - I agree they
>> shouldn't be in the TCK.
>> 
>> 
>>> I've challenged those tests. Still have to review every red test...
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 08.02.2018 um 11:19 schrieb Matthew Broadhead <
>>> matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>:
 
 nearly there!
 
 On 07/02/2018 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote:
> [ERROR] Failures:
> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
>>> » Deployment
> [INFO]
> [ERROR] Tests run: 1567, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5
> 
> 
> Wohuuu, 1 to go!
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
>> Am 02.02.2018 um 21:54 schrieb Mark Struberg
> >>> :
>> 
>> And the last status:
>> 
>> [ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
>>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntime
>> InvocationTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
>>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>>> interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true]
>> but
>>> found [false]
>> [INFO]
>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1570, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
>> 
>> Reminder: this is for cdi-embedded only for now.
>> But once we are through that the rest is usually much easier.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 01.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Mark Struberg >> :
>>> 
>>> We are moving...
>>> 
>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>> [ERROR] 

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Jonathan Gallimore]

At the risk of adding to my ever-growing task list and potentially becoming
a bottleneck, I did some EAR / RAR related fixes in master. I'll port those
forward and help look at these tests.

Jon

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
> And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee.
>
> 
> 
> 
>
> Those tests are all EAR related.
> Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> > Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg  >:
> >
> > Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in the
> Servlet spec.
> >
> > We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But there is no
> such event in the CDI spec so far.
> > The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for _destroyal_.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >> Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed you can
> still
> >> want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where both cases
> are
> >> desirable (i want to clean up related state of the session...as well as
> I
> >> don't want to touch the session)...
> >>
> >> Since the appcontext destroy can be used as a workaround I think it is
> fine
> >> to challenge them now.
> >>
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >>  | Old Blog
> >>  | Github  rmannibucau> |
> >> LinkedIn  | Book
> >>  ee-8-high-performance>
> >>
> >> 2018-02-08 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> >>
> >>> Yea, it's mainly testing whether the @Observes @BeforeDestroyed(
> SessionScoped.class)
> >>> and @Destroyed(SessionScoped.class) do work.
> >>> The tests itself are fine, but instead of relying that the sessions get
> >>> destroyed at server shutdown they could also have used
> >>> Session.invalidate()...
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
> >>>
>  Am 08.02.2018 um 11:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com
>  :
> 
>  2018-02-08 11:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> 
> > All the embedded tests are now green.
> >
> > I'm now working on cdi-tomes (webprofile TCK).
> > So far we have 10 errors, but a few TCK tests are broken because they
> > wrongly assume that a container stop also kills the Session.
> >
> 
>  We can make them passing. We already did this kind of hack but since
> all
>  container have pluggability here - for good reasons - I agree they
>  shouldn't be in the TCK.
> 
> 
> > I've challenged those tests. Still have to review every red test...
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:19 schrieb Matthew Broadhead <
> > matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>:
> >>
> >> nearly there!
> >>
> >> On 07/02/2018 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >>> [ERROR] Failures:
> >>> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> >>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> > » Deployment
> >>> [INFO]
> >>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1567, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Wohuuu, 1 to go!
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
>  Am 02.02.2018 um 21:54 schrieb Mark Struberg
> >>>  >> :
> 
>  And the last status:
> 
>  [ERROR] Failures:
>  [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> >>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> > » Deployment
>  [ERROR]   ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntime
> InvocationTest>Arquillian.
> >>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> > » Deployment
>  [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> > interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true]
> but
> > found [false]
>  [INFO]
>  [ERROR] Tests run: 1570, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
> 
>  Reminder: this is for cdi-embedded only for now.
>  But once we are through that the rest is usually much easier.
> 
>  LieGrue,
>  strub
> 
> 
> 
> > Am 01.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Mark Struberg  >:
> >
> > We are moving...
> >
> > [ERROR] Failures:
> > [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> >>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> > » Deployment
> > [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContex
> tTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> > testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> > [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvoc
> >>> ationContextTest>Arquillian.
> > run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> > [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>
> > Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserver

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

2018-02-14 23:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :

> We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
> And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee.
>
> 
> 
> 
>
> Those tests are all EAR related.
> Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?
>

Don't think so, ear deployment is not that hacky in arquillian for tomee
remote and just reading the test names it can be actual bugs. I think they
are outside WP anyway so can be excluded but the first and the last ones
can need some love before the exclusions since we should support them. I'm
pretty sure we don't support the second one (yet).

Hope it helps


>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> > Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg  >:
> >
> > Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in the
> Servlet spec.
> >
> > We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But there is no
> such event in the CDI spec so far.
> > The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for _destroyal_.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >> Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed you can
> still
> >> want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where both cases
> are
> >> desirable (i want to clean up related state of the session...as well as
> I
> >> don't want to touch the session)...
> >>
> >> Since the appcontext destroy can be used as a workaround I think it is
> fine
> >> to challenge them now.
> >>
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >>  | Old Blog
> >>  | Github  rmannibucau> |
> >> LinkedIn  | Book
> >>  ee-8-high-performance>
> >>
> >> 2018-02-08 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> >>
> >>> Yea, it's mainly testing whether the @Observes @BeforeDestroyed(
> SessionScoped.class)
> >>> and @Destroyed(SessionScoped.class) do work.
> >>> The tests itself are fine, but instead of relying that the sessions get
> >>> destroyed at server shutdown they could also have used
> >>> Session.invalidate()...
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
> >>>
>  Am 08.02.2018 um 11:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com
>  :
> 
>  2018-02-08 11:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> 
> > All the embedded tests are now green.
> >
> > I'm now working on cdi-tomes (webprofile TCK).
> > So far we have 10 errors, but a few TCK tests are broken because they
> > wrongly assume that a container stop also kills the Session.
> >
> 
>  We can make them passing. We already did this kind of hack but since
> all
>  container have pluggability here - for good reasons - I agree they
>  shouldn't be in the TCK.
> 
> 
> > I've challenged those tests. Still have to review every red test...
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:19 schrieb Matthew Broadhead <
> > matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>:
> >>
> >> nearly there!
> >>
> >> On 07/02/2018 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >>> [ERROR] Failures:
> >>> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> >>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> > » Deployment
> >>> [INFO]
> >>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1567, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Wohuuu, 1 to go!
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
>  Am 02.02.2018 um 21:54 schrieb Mark Struberg
> >>>  >> :
> 
>  And the last status:
> 
>  [ERROR] Failures:
>  [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> >>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> > » Deployment
>  [ERROR]   ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntime
> InvocationTest>Arquillian.
> >>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> > » Deployment
>  [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> > interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true]
> but
> > found [false]
>  [INFO]
>  [ERROR] Tests run: 1570, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
> 
>  Reminder: this is for cdi-embedded only for now.
>  But once we are through that the rest is usually much easier.
> 
>  LieGrue,
>  strub
> 
> 
> 
> > Am 01.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Mark Struberg  >:
> >
> > We are moving...
> >
> > [ERROR] Failures:
> > [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> >>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> > » Deployment
> > [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContex
> tTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> > testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> > [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvoc
> >>> ationContextTest>Arquillian.
> > run:164->testTransact

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

We now pass all tests in tck/cdi-embedded
And we have only 3 failing tests in tck/cdi-tomee. 





Those tests are all EAR related.
Maybe they are only Arquillian adapter issues?

LieGrue,
strub



> Am 08.02.2018 um 13:30 schrieb Mark Struberg :
> 
> Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in the Servlet 
> spec.
> 
> We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But there is no such 
> event in the CDI spec so far.
> The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for _destroyal_. 
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
>> Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
>> 
>> Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed you can still
>> want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where both cases are
>> desirable (i want to clean up related state of the session...as well as I
>> don't want to touch the session)...
>> 
>> Since the appcontext destroy can be used as a workaround I think it is fine
>> to challenge them now.
>> 
>> 
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>>  | Old Blog
>>  | Github  
>> |
>> LinkedIn  | Book
>> 
>> 
>> 2018-02-08 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
>> 
>>> Yea, it's mainly testing whether the @Observes 
>>> @BeforeDestroyed(SessionScoped.class)
>>> and @Destroyed(SessionScoped.class) do work.
>>> The tests itself are fine, but instead of relying that the sessions get
>>> destroyed at server shutdown they could also have used
>>> Session.invalidate()...
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 08.02.2018 um 11:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau >>> :
 
 2018-02-08 11:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
 
> All the embedded tests are now green.
> 
> I'm now working on cdi-tomes (webprofile TCK).
> So far we have 10 errors, but a few TCK tests are broken because they
> wrongly assume that a container stop also kills the Session.
> 
 
 We can make them passing. We already did this kind of hack but since all
 container have pluggability here - for good reasons - I agree they
 shouldn't be in the TCK.
 
 
> I've challenged those tests. Still have to review every red test...
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
>> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:19 schrieb Matthew Broadhead <
> matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>:
>> 
>> nearly there!
>> 
>> On 07/02/2018 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote:
>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
>>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
>>> [INFO]
>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1567, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Wohuuu, 1 to go!
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
 Am 02.02.2018 um 21:54 schrieb Mark Struberg
>>> > :
 
 And the last status:
 
 [ERROR] Failures:
 [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
>>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
 [ERROR]   ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.
>>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
 [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
> found [false]
 [INFO]
 [ERROR] Tests run: 1570, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
 
 Reminder: this is for cdi-embedded only for now.
 But once we are through that the rest is usually much easier.
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
 
 
> Am 01.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Mark Struberg :
> 
> We are moving...
> 
> [ERROR] Failures:
> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
>>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
> [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvoc
>>> ationContextTest>Arquillian.
> run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>
> Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> [ERROR]   ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.
>>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
> found [false]
> [INFO]
> [ERROR] Tests run: 1573, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 14:37:17 CET, Mark Struberg
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> With 

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

Well, this is why there are passivation listeners and stuff in the Servlet spec.

We could easily also send a specific CDI event for it. But there is no such 
event in the CDI spec so far.
The @Destryoed and @BeforeDestroyed are specifically for _destroyal_. 

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 08.02.2018 um 12:12 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed you can still
> want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where both cases are
> desirable (i want to clean up related state of the session...as well as I
> don't want to touch the session)...
> 
> Since the appcontext destroy can be used as a workaround I think it is fine
> to challenge them now.
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> 
> 
> 2018-02-08 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> 
>> Yea, it's mainly testing whether the @Observes 
>> @BeforeDestroyed(SessionScoped.class)
>> and @Destroyed(SessionScoped.class) do work.
>> The tests itself are fine, but instead of relying that the sessions get
>> destroyed at server shutdown they could also have used
>> Session.invalidate()...
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau >> :
>>> 
>>> 2018-02-08 11:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
>>> 
 All the embedded tests are now green.
 
 I'm now working on cdi-tomes (webprofile TCK).
 So far we have 10 errors, but a few TCK tests are broken because they
 wrongly assume that a container stop also kills the Session.
 
>>> 
>>> We can make them passing. We already did this kind of hack but since all
>>> container have pluggability here - for good reasons - I agree they
>>> shouldn't be in the TCK.
>>> 
>>> 
 I've challenged those tests. Still have to review every red test...
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
 
> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:19 schrieb Matthew Broadhead <
 matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>:
> 
> nearly there!
> 
> On 07/02/2018 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> [ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
>> [INFO]
>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1567, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5
>> 
>> 
>> Wohuuu, 1 to go!
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>>> Am 02.02.2018 um 21:54 schrieb Mark Struberg
>>  :
>>> 
>>> And the last status:
>>> 
>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
>>> [ERROR]   ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
>>> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
 interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
 found [false]
>>> [INFO]
>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1570, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
>>> 
>>> Reminder: this is for cdi-embedded only for now.
>>> But once we are through that the rest is usually much easier.
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 01.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Mark Struberg :
 
 We are moving...
 
 [ERROR] Failures:
 [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
 [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
 testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
 [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvoc
>> ationContextTest>Arquillian.
 run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
 [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>
 Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
 [ERROR]   ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
 [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
 interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
 found [false]
 [INFO]
 [ERROR] Tests run: 1573, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
 
 
 
 
 On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 14:37:17 CET, Mark Struberg
  wrote:
 
 
 With a bit help from Romains we are now down to 10 failing tests:
 
 
 ERROR] Failures:
 [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
 [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
 testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
 [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvoc
>> ationCon

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Hmm, it is more vicious cause if the session is not destroyed you can still
want to trigger this event. Guess it is another case where both cases are
desirable (i want to clean up related state of the session...as well as I
don't want to touch the session)...

Since the appcontext destroy can be used as a workaround I think it is fine
to challenge them now.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book


2018-02-08 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :

> Yea, it's mainly testing whether the @Observes 
> @BeforeDestroyed(SessionScoped.class)
> and @Destroyed(SessionScoped.class) do work.
> The tests itself are fine, but instead of relying that the sessions get
> destroyed at server shutdown they could also have used
> Session.invalidate()...
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 08.02.2018 um 11:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau  >:
> >
> > 2018-02-08 11:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> >
> >> All the embedded tests are now green.
> >>
> >> I'm now working on cdi-tomes (webprofile TCK).
> >> So far we have 10 errors, but a few TCK tests are broken because they
> >> wrongly assume that a container stop also kills the Session.
> >>
> >
> > We can make them passing. We already did this kind of hack but since all
> > container have pluggability here - for good reasons - I agree they
> > shouldn't be in the TCK.
> >
> >
> >> I've challenged those tests. Still have to review every red test...
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:19 schrieb Matthew Broadhead <
> >> matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>:
> >>>
> >>> nearly there!
> >>>
> >>> On 07/02/2018 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote:
>  [ERROR] Failures:
>  [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Deployment
>  [INFO]
>  [ERROR] Tests run: 1567, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5
> 
> 
>  Wohuuu, 1 to go!
> 
>  LieGrue,
>  strub
> 
> > Am 02.02.2018 um 21:54 schrieb Mark Struberg
>  >>> :
> >
> > And the last status:
> >
> > [ERROR] Failures:
> > [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Deployment
> > [ERROR]   ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Deployment
> > [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> >> interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
> >> found [false]
> > [INFO]
> > [ERROR] Tests run: 1570, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
> >
> > Reminder: this is for cdi-embedded only for now.
> > But once we are through that the rest is usually much easier.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >> Am 01.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Mark Struberg :
> >>
> >> We are moving...
> >>
> >> [ERROR] Failures:
> >> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Deployment
> >> [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> >> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> >> [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvoc
> ationContextTest>Arquillian.
> >> run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> >> [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>
> >> Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> >> [ERROR]   ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Deployment
> >> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> >> interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
> >> found [false]
> >> [INFO]
> >> [ERROR] Tests run: 1573, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 14:37:17 CET, Mark Struberg
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> With a bit help from Romains we are now down to 10 failing tests:
> >>
> >>
> >> ERROR] Failures:
> >> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Deployment
> >> [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> >> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> >> [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvoc
> ationContextTest>Arquillian.
> >> run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> >> [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>
> >> Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> >> [ERROR]   ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Deployment
> >> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> >> interceptedBeanForE

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

Yea, it's mainly testing whether the @Observes 
@BeforeDestroyed(SessionScoped.class) and @Destroyed(SessionScoped.class) do 
work.
The tests itself are fine, but instead of relying that the sessions get 
destroyed at server shutdown they could also have used Session.invalidate()...

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:30 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> 2018-02-08 11:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> 
>> All the embedded tests are now green.
>> 
>> I'm now working on cdi-tomes (webprofile TCK).
>> So far we have 10 errors, but a few TCK tests are broken because they
>> wrongly assume that a container stop also kills the Session.
>> 
> 
> We can make them passing. We already did this kind of hack but since all
> container have pluggability here - for good reasons - I agree they
> shouldn't be in the TCK.
> 
> 
>> I've challenged those tests. Still have to review every red test...
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:19 schrieb Matthew Broadhead <
>> matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>:
>>> 
>>> nearly there!
>>> 
>>> On 07/02/2018 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote:
 [ERROR] Failures:
 [ERROR]   
 EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
 [INFO]
 [ERROR] Tests run: 1567, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5
 
 
 Wohuuu, 1 to go!
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
> Am 02.02.2018 um 21:54 schrieb Mark Struberg >> :
> 
> And the last status:
> 
> [ERROR] Failures:
> [ERROR]   
> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
> [ERROR]   
> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
>> found [false]
> [INFO]
> [ERROR] Tests run: 1570, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
> 
> Reminder: this is for cdi-embedded only for now.
> But once we are through that the rest is usually much easier.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 01.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Mark Struberg :
>> 
>> We are moving...
>> 
>> [ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]   
>> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.
>> run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>
>> Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
>> found [false]
>> [INFO]
>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1573, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 14:37:17 CET, Mark Struberg
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> With a bit help from Romains we are now down to 10 failing tests:
>> 
>> 
>> ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]   
>> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.
>> run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>
>> Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
>> found [false]
>> [ERROR]   
>> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91
>> » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78
>> » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [ERROR]   
>> RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [INFO]
>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1577, Failures: 10, Errors: 0, Skipped: 26
>> 
>> LieGrue,strub
>> 
>>   On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 00:21:58 CET, Mark Struberg
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Fixed the new CDI-2.0  feature.
>> 
>> Now down to 16 ^^
>> 
>> [ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]  
>> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> 

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

2018-02-08 11:28 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :

> All the embedded tests are now green.
>
> I'm now working on cdi-tomes (webprofile TCK).
> So far we have 10 errors, but a few TCK tests are broken because they
> wrongly assume that a container stop also kills the Session.
>

We can make them passing. We already did this kind of hack but since all
container have pluggability here - for good reasons - I agree they
shouldn't be in the TCK.


> I've challenged those tests. Still have to review every red test...
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 08.02.2018 um 11:19 schrieb Matthew Broadhead <
> matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk>:
> >
> > nearly there!
> >
> > On 07/02/2018 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >> [ERROR] Failures:
> >> [ERROR]   
> >> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
> >> [INFO]
> >> [ERROR] Tests run: 1567, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5
> >>
> >>
> >> Wohuuu, 1 to go!
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>> Am 02.02.2018 um 21:54 schrieb Mark Struberg  >:
> >>>
> >>> And the last status:
> >>>
> >>> [ERROR] Failures:
> >>> [ERROR]   
> >>> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
> >>> [ERROR]   
> >>> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
> >>> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
> found [false]
> >>> [INFO]
> >>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1570, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
> >>>
> >>> Reminder: this is for cdi-embedded only for now.
> >>> But once we are through that the rest is usually much easier.
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  Am 01.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Mark Struberg :
> 
>  We are moving...
> 
>  [ERROR] Failures:
>  [ERROR]   
>  EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
>  [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>  [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.
> run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>  [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>
> Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>  [ERROR]   
>  ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
>  [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
> found [false]
>  [INFO]
>  [ERROR] Tests run: 1573, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 14:37:17 CET, Mark Struberg
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>  With a bit help from Romains we are now down to 10 failing tests:
> 
> 
>  ERROR] Failures:
>  [ERROR]   
>  EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
>  [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>  [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.
> run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>  [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>
> Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>  [ERROR]   
>  ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
>  [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
> found [false]
>  [ERROR]   
>  BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91
> » EJB
>  [ERROR]   
>  BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78
> » EJB
>  [ERROR]   
>  RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Runtime
>  [ERROR]   
>  RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Runtime
>  [INFO]
>  [ERROR] Tests run: 1577, Failures: 10, Errors: 0, Skipped: 26
> 
>  LieGrue,strub
> 
> On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 00:21:58 CET, Mark Struberg
>  wrote:
> 
>  Fixed the new CDI-2.0  feature.
> 
>  Now down to 16 ^^
> 
>  [ERROR] Failures:
>  [ERROR]  
>  EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
>  [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79
> expected object to not be null
>  [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
> » UnsatisfiedResolution
>  [ERROR]  
>  EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Runtime
>  [ERROR]  
> 

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

All the embedded tests are now green.

I'm now working on cdi-tomes (webprofile TCK).
So far we have 10 errors, but a few TCK tests are broken because they wrongly 
assume that a container stop also kills the Session.
I've challenged those tests. Still have to review every red test...

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 08.02.2018 um 11:19 schrieb Matthew Broadhead 
> :
> 
> nearly there!
> 
> On 07/02/2018 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> [ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]   
>> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
>> » Deployment
>> [INFO]
>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1567, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5
>> 
>> 
>> Wohuuu, 1 to go!
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>>> Am 02.02.2018 um 21:54 schrieb Mark Struberg :
>>> 
>>> And the last status:
>>> 
>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>> [ERROR]   
>>> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
>>> » Deployment
>>> [ERROR]   
>>> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>>>  » Deployment
>>> [ERROR]   
>>> BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
>>>  expected [true] but found [false]
>>> [INFO]
>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1570, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
>>> 
>>> Reminder: this is for cdi-embedded only for now.
>>> But once we are through that the rest is usually much easier.
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 01.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Mark Struberg :
 
 We are moving...
 
 [ERROR] Failures:
 [ERROR]   
 EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
  » Deployment
 [ERROR]   
 ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
  » EJB
 [ERROR]   
 SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
  » EJB
 [ERROR]   
 SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
  » EJB
 [ERROR]   
 ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
  » Deployment
 [ERROR]   
 BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
  expected [true] but found [false]
 [INFO]
 [ERROR] Tests run: 1573, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
 
 
 
 
 On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 14:37:17 CET, Mark Struberg 
  wrote:
 
 
 With a bit help from Romains we are now down to 10 failing tests:
 
 
 ERROR] Failures:
 [ERROR]   
 EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
  » Deployment
 [ERROR]   
 ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
  » EJB
 [ERROR]   
 SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
  » EJB
 [ERROR]   
 SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
  » EJB
 [ERROR]   
 ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
  » Deployment
 [ERROR]   
 BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
  expected [true] but found [false]
 [ERROR]   
 BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91
  » EJB
 [ERROR]   
 BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78
  » EJB
 [ERROR]   
 RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
 Runtime
 [ERROR]   
 RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
 Runtime
 [INFO]
 [ERROR] Tests run: 1577, Failures: 10, Errors: 0, Skipped: 26
 
 LieGrue,strub
 
On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 00:21:58 CET, Mark Struberg 
  wrote:
 
 Fixed the new CDI-2.0  feature.
 
 Now down to 16 ^^
 
 [ERROR] Failures:
 [ERROR]  
 EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
  » Deployment
 [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79 
 expected object to not be null
 [ERROR]  
 ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
  » UnsatisfiedResolution
 [ERROR]  
 EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
  » Runtime
 [ERROR]  
 EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
  » Runtime
 [ERROR]  
 ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
  » EJB
 [ERROR]  
 EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Ar

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Matthew Broadhead]

nearly there!

On 07/02/2018 11:57, Mark Struberg wrote:

[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment
[INFO]
[ERROR] Tests run: 1567, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5


Wohuuu, 1 to go!

LieGrue,
strub


Am 02.02.2018 um 21:54 schrieb Mark Struberg :

And the last status:

[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment
[ERROR]   
ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
 expected [true] but found [false]
[INFO]
[ERROR] Tests run: 1570, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22

Reminder: this is for cdi-embedded only for now.
But once we are through that the rest is usually much easier.

LieGrue,
strub




Am 01.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Mark Struberg :

We are moving...

[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment
[ERROR]   
ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
 expected [true] but found [false]
[INFO]
[ERROR] Tests run: 1573, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22




On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 14:37:17 CET, Mark Struberg 
 wrote:


With a bit help from Romains we are now down to 10 failing tests:


ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment
[ERROR]   
ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
 expected [true] but found [false]
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91 » 
EJB
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78 » 
EJB
[ERROR]   RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[ERROR]   RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[INFO]
[ERROR] Tests run: 1577, Failures: 10, Errors: 0, Skipped: 26

LieGrue,strub

On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 00:21:58 CET, Mark Struberg 
 wrote:

Fixed the new CDI-2.0  feature.

Now down to 16 ^^

[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]  
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment
[ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79 
expected object to not be null
[ERROR]  
ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
 » UnsatisfiedResolution
[ERROR]  
EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Runtime
[ERROR]  
EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[ERROR]  
ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]  
EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:68
 expected [true] but found [false]
[ERROR]  
EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextPropagation:59
 NullPointer
[ERROR]  
SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]  
SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]  
ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
[ERROR]  
BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
 expected [true] but found [false]
[ERROR]  
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91 » 
EJB
[ERROR]  
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78 » 
EJB
[ERROR]  RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[ERROR]

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment
[INFO]
[ERROR] Tests run: 1567, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 5


Wohuuu, 1 to go!

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 02.02.2018 um 21:54 schrieb Mark Struberg :
> 
> And the last status:
> 
> [ERROR] Failures:
> [ERROR]   
> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
> Deployment
> [ERROR]   
> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>  » Deployment
> [ERROR]   
> BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
>  expected [true] but found [false]
> [INFO]
> [ERROR] Tests run: 1570, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
> 
> Reminder: this is for cdi-embedded only for now.
> But once we are through that the rest is usually much easier.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 01.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Mark Struberg :
>> 
>> We are moving...
>> 
>> [ERROR] Failures: 
>> [ERROR]   
>> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   
>> ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>>  » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>>  » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>>  » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>>  » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   
>> BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
>>  expected [true] but found [false]
>> [INFO] 
>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1573, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 14:37:17 CET, Mark Struberg 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> With a bit help from Romains we are now down to 10 failing tests:
>> 
>> 
>> ERROR] Failures: 
>> [ERROR]   
>> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   
>> ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>>  » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>>  » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>>  » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>>  » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   
>> BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
>>  expected [true] but found [false]
>> [ERROR]   
>> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91 
>> » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78
>>  » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
>> Runtime
>> [ERROR]   
>> RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
>> Runtime
>> [INFO] 
>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1577, Failures: 10, Errors: 0, Skipped: 26
>> 
>> LieGrue,strub
>> 
>>On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 00:21:58 CET, Mark Struberg 
>>  wrote:  
>> 
>> Fixed the new CDI-2.0  feature.
>> 
>> Now down to 16 ^^
>> 
>> [ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]  
>> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79 
>> expected object to not be null
>> [ERROR]  
>> ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
>>  » UnsatisfiedResolution
>> [ERROR]  
>> EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>>  » Runtime
>> [ERROR]  
>> EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>>  » Runtime
>> [ERROR]  
>> ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>>  » EJB
>> [ERROR]  
>> EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:68
>>  expected [true] but found [false]
>> [ERROR]  
>> EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextPropagation:59
>>  NullPointer
>> [ERROR]  
>> SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>>  » EJB
>> [ERROR]  
>> SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>>  » EJB
>> [ERROR]  
>> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>>  » Deployment
>> [ERROR]  
>> BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNul

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

And the last status:

[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment
[ERROR]   
ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
 expected [true] but found [false]
[INFO]
[ERROR] Tests run: 1570, Failures: 3, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22

Reminder: this is for cdi-embedded only for now.
But once we are through that the rest is usually much easier.

LieGrue,
strub



> Am 01.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Mark Struberg :
> 
> We are moving...
> 
> [ERROR] Failures: 
> [ERROR]   
> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
> Deployment
> [ERROR]   
> ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>  » EJB
> [ERROR]   
> SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>  » EJB
> [ERROR]   
> SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>  » EJB
> [ERROR]   
> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>  » Deployment
> [ERROR]   
> BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
>  expected [true] but found [false]
> [INFO] 
> [ERROR] Tests run: 1573, Failures: 6, Errors: 0, Skipped: 22
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 14:37:17 CET, Mark Struberg 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> With a bit help from Romains we are now down to 10 failing tests:
> 
> 
> ERROR] Failures: 
> [ERROR]   
> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
> Deployment
> [ERROR]   
> ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>  » EJB
> [ERROR]   
> SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>  » EJB
> [ERROR]   
> SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>  » EJB
> [ERROR]   
> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>  » Deployment
> [ERROR]   
> BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
>  expected [true] but found [false]
> [ERROR]   
> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91 » 
> EJB
> [ERROR]   
> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78 
> » EJB
> [ERROR]   
> RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
> Runtime
> [ERROR]   
> RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
> Runtime
> [INFO] 
> [ERROR] Tests run: 1577, Failures: 10, Errors: 0, Skipped: 26
> 
> LieGrue,strub
> 
> On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 00:21:58 CET, Mark Struberg 
>  wrote:  
> 
> Fixed the new CDI-2.0  feature.
> 
> Now down to 16 ^^
> 
> [ERROR] Failures:
> [ERROR]  
> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
> Deployment
> [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79 
> expected object to not be null
> [ERROR]  
> ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
>  » UnsatisfiedResolution
> [ERROR]  
> EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>  » Runtime
> [ERROR]  
> EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>  » Runtime
> [ERROR]  
> ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>  » EJB
> [ERROR]  
> EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:68
>  expected [true] but found [false]
> [ERROR]  
> EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextPropagation:59
>  NullPointer
> [ERROR]  
> SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>  » EJB
> [ERROR]  
> SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>  » EJB
> [ERROR]  
> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>  » Deployment
> [ERROR]  
> BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
>  expected [true] but found [false]
> [ERROR]  
> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91 » 
> EJB
> [ERROR]  
> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78 
> » EJB
> [ERROR]  
> RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
> Runtime
> [ERROR]  
> RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:1

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Alex The Rocker]

Hello,

I will be able to use (and thus, to make feedbacks) on a TomEE+ 8
binary preview release if it includes JAX RS 2.1 : I have some fun
stuff to do with SSE for feeding some reactive uis :)

Best regards,
Alex

2018-02-01 16:39 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau :
> a lot of libs should be updated before the release I think, like johnzon
> which is ready (literally like 2 poms to update). but yes we can do a
> release anytime technically. In terms of first
> bundle we can at least desire to have CDI 2 webprofile support, probably
> json-p/json-b and maybe jax-rs upgrade (which should be trivial as well).
>
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  |
> LinkedIn 
>
> 2018-02-01 16:10 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro :
>
>> These are CDI TCK only. Java EE 8 TCK aren't available openly (Open
>> sourced) so we can't certify the Apache version of TomEE
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Louis Monteiro
>> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
>> http://www.tomitribe.com
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Matthew Broadhead <
>> matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > exciting.  when it passes all the tests will there be a beta release ?
>> >
>> >
>> > On 01/02/2018 14:37, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> >
>> >> With a bit help from Romains we are now down to 10 failing tests:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   ERROR] Failures:
>> >> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> >> » Deployment
>> >> [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>> >> » EJB
>> >> [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.ru
>> >> n:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> >> [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquill
>> >> ian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> >> [ERROR]   ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> >> » Deployment
>> >> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBea
>> >> nForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but found [false]
>> >> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> testDecoratorMetadata:91
>> >> » EJB
>> >> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> testInterceptorMetadata:78
>> >> » EJB
>> >> [ERROR]   RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> >> » Runtime
>> >> [ERROR]   RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> >> » Runtime
>> >> [INFO]
>> >> [ERROR] Tests run: 1577, Failures: 10, Errors: 0, Skipped: 26
>> >>
>> >> LieGrue,strub
>> >>
>> >>  On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 00:21:58 CET, Mark Struberg
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> Fixed the new CDI-2.0  feature.
>> >>
>> >> Now down to 16 ^^
>> >>
>> >> [ERROR] Failures:
>> >> [ERROR]  EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> >> » Deployment
>> >> [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> testInjection:79
>> >> expected object to not be null
>> >> [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testResolutio
>> >> n:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.
>> resolveUniqueBean:169
>> >> » UnsatisfiedResolution
>> >> [ERROR]  EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> >> » Runtime
>> >> [ERROR]  EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> >> » Runtime
>> >> [ERROR]  ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>> >> » EJB
>> >> [ERROR]  EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arqu
>> >> illian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:68 expected [true] but
>> >> found [false]
>> >> [ERROR]  EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arqu
>> >> illian.run:164->testSecurityContextPropagation:59 NullPointer
>> >> [ERROR]  SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.ru
>> >> n:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> >> [ERROR]  SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquill
>> >> ian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> >> [ERROR]  ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> >> » Deployment
>> >> [ERROR]  BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBea
>> >> nForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but found [false]
>> >> [ERROR]  BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> testDecoratorMetadata:91
>> >> » EJB
>> >> [ERROR]  BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> testInterceptorMetadata:78
>> >> » EJB
>> >> [ERROR]  RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.
>> arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> >> » Runtime
>> >> [ERROR]  Remote

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

a lot of libs should be updated before the release I think, like johnzon
which is ready (literally like 2 poms to update). but yes we can do a
release anytime technically. In terms of first
bundle we can at least desire to have CDI 2 webprofile support, probably
json-p/json-b and maybe jax-rs upgrade (which should be trivial as well).



Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn 

2018-02-01 16:10 GMT+01:00 Jean-Louis Monteiro :

> These are CDI TCK only. Java EE 8 TCK aren't available openly (Open
> sourced) so we can't certify the Apache version of TomEE
>
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Matthew Broadhead <
> matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > exciting.  when it passes all the tests will there be a beta release ?
> >
> >
> > On 01/02/2018 14:37, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >
> >> With a bit help from Romains we are now down to 10 failing tests:
> >>
> >>
> >>   ERROR] Failures:
> >> [ERROR]   EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Deployment
> >> [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
> >> » EJB
> >> [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.ru
> >> n:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> >> [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquill
> >> ian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> >> [ERROR]   ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Deployment
> >> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBea
> >> nForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but found [false]
> >> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> testDecoratorMetadata:91
> >> » EJB
> >> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> testInterceptorMetadata:78
> >> » EJB
> >> [ERROR]   RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Runtime
> >> [ERROR]   RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Runtime
> >> [INFO]
> >> [ERROR] Tests run: 1577, Failures: 10, Errors: 0, Skipped: 26
> >>
> >> LieGrue,strub
> >>
> >>  On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 00:21:58 CET, Mark Struberg
> >>  wrote:
> >> Fixed the new CDI-2.0  feature.
> >>
> >> Now down to 16 ^^
> >>
> >> [ERROR] Failures:
> >> [ERROR]  EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Deployment
> >> [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> testInjection:79
> >> expected object to not be null
> >> [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testResolutio
> >> n:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.
> resolveUniqueBean:169
> >> » UnsatisfiedResolution
> >> [ERROR]  EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Runtime
> >> [ERROR]  EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Runtime
> >> [ERROR]  ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
> >> » EJB
> >> [ERROR]  EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arqu
> >> illian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:68 expected [true] but
> >> found [false]
> >> [ERROR]  EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arqu
> >> illian.run:164->testSecurityContextPropagation:59 NullPointer
> >> [ERROR]  SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.ru
> >> n:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> >> [ERROR]  SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquill
> >> ian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> >> [ERROR]  ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Deployment
> >> [ERROR]  BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBea
> >> nForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but found [false]
> >> [ERROR]  BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> testDecoratorMetadata:91
> >> » EJB
> >> [ERROR]  BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> testInterceptorMetadata:78
> >> » EJB
> >> [ERROR]  RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Runtime
> >> [ERROR]  RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.
> arquillianBeforeClass:109
> >> » Runtime
> >> [INFO]
> >> [ERROR] Tests run: 1585, Failures: 16, Errors: 0, Skipped: 30
> >>
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 31.01.2018 um 11:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com
> >>> >:
> >>>
> >>>  From memory, until you need jsf or advanced web stuff all should run
> in
> >>>

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

These are CDI TCK only. Java EE 8 TCK aren't available openly (Open
sourced) so we can't certify the Apache version of TomEE

--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Matthew Broadhead <
matthew.broadh...@nbmlaw.co.uk> wrote:

> exciting.  when it passes all the tests will there be a beta release ?
>
>
> On 01/02/2018 14:37, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>> With a bit help from Romains we are now down to 10 failing tests:
>>
>>
>>   ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]   
>> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   
>> ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>> » EJB
>> [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.ru
>> n:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquill
>> ian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBea
>> nForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but found [false]
>> [ERROR]   
>> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91
>> » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78
>> » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [ERROR]   
>> RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [INFO]
>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1577, Failures: 10, Errors: 0, Skipped: 26
>>
>> LieGrue,strub
>>
>>  On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 00:21:58 CET, Mark Struberg
>>  wrote:
>> Fixed the new CDI-2.0  feature.
>>
>> Now down to 16 ^^
>>
>> [ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]  
>> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79
>> expected object to not be null
>> [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testResolutio
>> n:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
>> » UnsatisfiedResolution
>> [ERROR]  
>> EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [ERROR]  
>> EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [ERROR]  
>> ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
>> » EJB
>> [ERROR]  EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arqu
>> illian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:68 expected [true] but
>> found [false]
>> [ERROR]  EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arqu
>> illian.run:164->testSecurityContextPropagation:59 NullPointer
>> [ERROR]  SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.ru
>> n:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]  SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquill
>> ian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]  
>> ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]  BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBea
>> nForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but found [false]
>> [ERROR]  
>> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91
>> » EJB
>> [ERROR]  
>> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78
>> » EJB
>> [ERROR]  
>> RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [ERROR]  
>> RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [INFO]
>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1585, Failures: 16, Errors: 0, Skipped: 30
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 31.01.2018 um 11:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau >> >:
>>>
>>>  From memory, until you need jsf or advanced web stuff all should run in
>>> embedded mode. That said we can need to tune jaas to match the
>>> expectations
>>> of the tcks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>>>  | Old Blog
>>>  | Github <
>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn 
>>>
>>> 2018-01-31 11:00 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
>>>
>>> Txs JL!

 Btw, this is the current status:

 [ERROR] Failures:
 [ERROR]  EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillian
 BeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
 [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection
 :79
 expected object to not be null
 [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->
 testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUn

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Matthew Broadhead]

exciting.  when it passes all the tests will there be a beta release ?

On 01/02/2018 14:37, Mark Struberg wrote:

With a bit help from Romains we are now down to 10 failing tests:


  ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment
[ERROR]   
ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
 expected [true] but found [false]
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91 » 
EJB
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78 » 
EJB
[ERROR]   RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[ERROR]   RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[INFO]
[ERROR] Tests run: 1577, Failures: 10, Errors: 0, Skipped: 26

LieGrue,strub

 On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 00:21:58 CET, Mark Struberg 
 wrote:
  
  Fixed the new CDI-2.0  feature.


Now down to 16 ^^

[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]  
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment
[ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79 
expected object to not be null
[ERROR]  
ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
 » UnsatisfiedResolution
[ERROR]  
EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Runtime
[ERROR]  
EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[ERROR]  
ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]  
EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:68
 expected [true] but found [false]
[ERROR]  
EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextPropagation:59
 NullPointer
[ERROR]  
SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]  
SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]  
ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
[ERROR]  
BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
 expected [true] but found [false]
[ERROR]  
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91 » 
EJB
[ERROR]  
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78 » 
EJB
[ERROR]  RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[ERROR]  RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[INFO]
[ERROR] Tests run: 1585, Failures: 16, Errors: 0, Skipped: 30


LieGrue,
strub




Am 31.01.2018 um 11:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :

 From memory, until you need jsf or advanced web stuff all should run in
embedded mode. That said we can need to tune jaas to match the expectations
of the tcks.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn 

2018-01-31 11:00 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :


Txs JL!

Btw, this is the current status:

[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]  
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
» Deployment
[ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79
expected object to not be null
[ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->
testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
» UnsatisfiedResolution
[ERROR]  TrimmedBeanArchiveTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 »
Deployment can't...
[ERROR]  EnterpriseTrimmedBeanArchiveTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
» Deployment
[ERROR]  
EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
» Runtime
[ERROR]  
EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
» Runtime
[ERROR]  ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
[ERROR]  EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>
Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

With a bit help from Romains we are now down to 10 failing tests:


 ERROR] Failures: 
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment
[ERROR]   
ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
 expected [true] but found [false]
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91 » 
EJB
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78 » 
EJB
[ERROR]   RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[ERROR]   RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[INFO] 
[ERROR] Tests run: 1577, Failures: 10, Errors: 0, Skipped: 26

LieGrue,strub

On Thursday, 1 February 2018, 00:21:58 CET, Mark Struberg 
 wrote:  
 
 Fixed the new CDI-2.0  feature.

Now down to 16 ^^

[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]  
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment
[ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79 
expected object to not be null
[ERROR]  
ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
 » UnsatisfiedResolution
[ERROR]  
EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Runtime
[ERROR]  
EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[ERROR]  
ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]  
EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:68
 expected [true] but found [false]
[ERROR]  
EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextPropagation:59
 NullPointer
[ERROR]  
SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]  
SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]  
ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
[ERROR]  
BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
 expected [true] but found [false]
[ERROR]  
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91 » 
EJB
[ERROR]  
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78 » 
EJB
[ERROR]  RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[ERROR]  RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[INFO]
[ERROR] Tests run: 1585, Failures: 16, Errors: 0, Skipped: 30


LieGrue,
strub



> Am 31.01.2018 um 11:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> From memory, until you need jsf or advanced web stuff all should run in
> embedded mode. That said we can need to tune jaas to match the expectations
> of the tcks.
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  |
> LinkedIn 
> 
> 2018-01-31 11:00 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> 
>> Txs JL!
>> 
>> Btw, this is the current status:
>> 
>> [ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]  
>> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79
>> expected object to not be null
>> [ERROR]  ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
>> » UnsatisfiedResolution
>> [ERROR]  TrimmedBeanArchiveTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 »
>> Deployment can't...
>> [ERROR]  
>> EnterpriseTrimmedBeanArchiveTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]  
>> EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [ERROR]  
>> EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [ERROR]  ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]  EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>
>> Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:68 ex

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

Fixed the new CDI-2.0  feature.

Now down to 16 ^^

[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment
[ERROR]   ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79 
expected object to not be null
[ERROR]   
ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
 » UnsatisfiedResolution
[ERROR]   
EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Runtime
[ERROR]   
EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[ERROR]   
ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:68
 expected [true] but found [false]
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextPropagation:59
 NullPointer
[ERROR]   
SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
ContainerLifeCycleEventRuntimeInvocationTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Deployment
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
 expected [true] but found [false]
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91 » 
EJB
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78 » 
EJB
[ERROR]   RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[ERROR]   RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[INFO]
[ERROR] Tests run: 1585, Failures: 16, Errors: 0, Skipped: 30


LieGrue,
strub



> Am 31.01.2018 um 11:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> From memory, until you need jsf or advanced web stuff all should run in
> embedded mode. That said we can need to tune jaas to match the expectations
> of the tcks.
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  |
> LinkedIn 
> 
> 2018-01-31 11:00 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> 
>> Txs JL!
>> 
>> Btw, this is the current status:
>> 
>> [ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]   
>> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79
>> expected object to not be null
>> [ERROR]   ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
>> » UnsatisfiedResolution
>> [ERROR]   TrimmedBeanArchiveTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 »
>> Deployment can't...
>> [ERROR]   
>> EnterpriseTrimmedBeanArchiveTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Deployment
>> [ERROR]   
>> EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [ERROR]   
>> EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]   EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>
>> Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:68 expected [true]
>> but found [false]
>> [ERROR]   EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>
>> Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextPropagation:59 NullPointer
>> [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.
>> run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>
>> Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
>> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
>> interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
>> found [false]
>> [ERROR]   
>> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91
>> » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78
>> » EJB
>> [ERROR]   
>> RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [ERROR]   
>> RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
>> » Runtime
>> [INFO]
>> [ERROR] Tests run: 1587, Failures: 17, Errors: 0, Skipped: 19
>> 
>> 
>> I'll fix the trim test next.
>> But I need a bit help with the others as I'm not quite sure whether those
>> tests are supposed to work in cdi-embedded or only in the full-profile.
>> 
>> We have some failures like:
>> 
>> Caused

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

>From memory, until you need jsf or advanced web stuff all should run in
embedded mode. That said we can need to tune jaas to match the expectations
of the tcks.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn 

2018-01-31 11:00 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :

> Txs JL!
>
> Btw, this is the current status:
>
> [ERROR] Failures:
> [ERROR]   
> EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
> [ERROR]   ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79
> expected object to not be null
> [ERROR]   ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
> » UnsatisfiedResolution
> [ERROR]   TrimmedBeanArchiveTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 »
> Deployment can't...
> [ERROR]   
> EnterpriseTrimmedBeanArchiveTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Deployment
> [ERROR]   
> EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Runtime
> [ERROR]   
> EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Runtime
> [ERROR]   ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> [ERROR]   EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>
> Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:68 expected [true]
> but found [false]
> [ERROR]   EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>
> Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextPropagation:59 NullPointer
> [ERROR]   SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.
> run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> [ERROR]   SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>
> Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55 » EJB
> [ERROR]   BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->
> interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61 expected [true] but
> found [false]
> [ERROR]   
> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91
> » EJB
> [ERROR]   
> BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78
> » EJB
> [ERROR]   
> RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Runtime
> [ERROR]   
> RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
> » Runtime
> [INFO]
> [ERROR] Tests run: 1587, Failures: 17, Errors: 0, Skipped: 19
>
>
> I'll fix the trim test next.
> But I need a bit help with the others as I'm not quite sure whether those
> tests are supposed to work in cdi-embedded or only in the full-profile.
>
> We have some failures like:
>
> Caused by: javax.ejb.EJBAccessException: Unauthorized Access by Principal
> Denied
> at org.apache.openejb.core.stateless.StatelessContainer.
> invoke(StatelessContainer.java:189)
> at org.apache.openejb.core.ivm.EjbObjectProxyHandler.
> synchronizedBusinessMethod(EjbObjectProxyHandler.java:265)
> at org.apache.openejb.core.ivm.EjbObjectProxyHandler.
> businessMethod(EjbObjectProxyHandler.java:260)
> at org.apache.openejb.core.ivm.EjbObjectProxyHandler._invoke(
> EjbObjectProxyHandler.java:89)
> at org.apache.openejb.core.ivm.BaseEjbProxyHandler.invoke(
> BaseEjbProxyHandler.java:347)
> at org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.event.observer.context.enterprise.
> staticMethod.Printer$$LocalBeanProxy.printSuccess(
> org/jboss/cdi/tck/tests/event/observer/context/enterprise/
> staticMethod/Printer.java)
> at org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.event.observer.context.enterprise.
> staticMethod.Student.printSuccess(Student.java:33)
>
> Who might be able to help a bit?
> We could also do a hangout session to hang over the code together.
> Done this yesterday with Reinhard Sandtner to fix a few Extension bugs.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 31.01.2018 um 10:38 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>:
> >
> > yes yank the profile if not usable and if no one should use it to avoid
> > mistakes
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Louis Monteiro
> > http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Mark Struberg
> 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Then we should at least add a README?
> >> Or at least document that profile in the pom.
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 31.01.2018 um 09:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>> 2018-01-31 9:34 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> >>>
>  Yes I thought something similar when trashing 2 hours to try to get
> the
>  JAXB generator running.
>  Just to figure it might be broken beyond repair...
>  Thanks that you at least confirm this view and spare me further
>  investigation.
> 
>  There are 2 options on the table
> 
>  1.) Do a quic

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

Txs JL!

Btw, this is the current status:

[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseDefaultBeanDiscoveryModeTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment
[ERROR]   ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInjection:79 
expected object to not be null
[ERROR]   
ResourceAdapterArchiveTest>Arquillian.run:164->testResolution:86->AbstractTest.getUniqueBean:133->AbstractTest.resolveUniqueBean:169
 » UnsatisfiedResolution
[ERROR]   TrimmedBeanArchiveTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 » 
Deployment can't...
[ERROR]   EnterpriseTrimmedBeanArchiveTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Deployment
[ERROR]   
EJBAsyncObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109
 » Runtime
[ERROR]   
EJBObserverMethodRemoteBusinessMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[ERROR]   
ObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextNotPropagated:68
 expected [true] but found [false]
[ERROR]   
EnterpriseSecurityContextPropagationInAsyncObserverTest>Arquillian.run:164->testSecurityContextPropagation:59
 NullPointer
[ERROR]   
SessionBeanObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
SessionBeanStaticObserverMethodInvocationContextTest>Arquillian.run:164->testTransactionalObserverMethod:55
 » EJB
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataEEBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->interceptedBeanForEEComponentIsNullInInterceptor:61
 expected [true] but found [false]
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testDecoratorMetadata:91 » 
EJB
[ERROR]   
BuiltinMetadataSessionBeanTest>Arquillian.run:164->testInterceptorMetadata:78 » 
EJB
[ERROR]   RemoteBusinessDisposalMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[ERROR]   RemoteBusinessProducerMethodTest>Arquillian.arquillianBeforeClass:109 
» Runtime
[INFO]
[ERROR] Tests run: 1587, Failures: 17, Errors: 0, Skipped: 19


I'll fix the trim test next.
But I need a bit help with the others as I'm not quite sure whether those tests 
are supposed to work in cdi-embedded or only in the full-profile.

We have some failures like:

Caused by: javax.ejb.EJBAccessException: Unauthorized Access by Principal Denied
at 
org.apache.openejb.core.stateless.StatelessContainer.invoke(StatelessContainer.java:189)
at 
org.apache.openejb.core.ivm.EjbObjectProxyHandler.synchronizedBusinessMethod(EjbObjectProxyHandler.java:265)
at 
org.apache.openejb.core.ivm.EjbObjectProxyHandler.businessMethod(EjbObjectProxyHandler.java:260)
at 
org.apache.openejb.core.ivm.EjbObjectProxyHandler._invoke(EjbObjectProxyHandler.java:89)
at 
org.apache.openejb.core.ivm.BaseEjbProxyHandler.invoke(BaseEjbProxyHandler.java:347)
at 
org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.event.observer.context.enterprise.staticMethod.Printer$$LocalBeanProxy.printSuccess(org/jboss/cdi/tck/tests/event/observer/context/enterprise/staticMethod/Printer.java)
at 
org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.event.observer.context.enterprise.staticMethod.Student.printSuccess(Student.java:33)

Who might be able to help a bit?
We could also do a hangout session to hang over the code together.
Done this yesterday with Reinhard Sandtner to fix a few Extension bugs.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 31.01.2018 um 10:38 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro :
> 
> yes yank the profile if not usable and if no one should use it to avoid
> mistakes
> 
> 
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> 
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Then we should at least add a README?
>> Or at least document that profile in the pom.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 31.01.2018 um 09:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau >> :
>>> 
>>> 2018-01-31 9:34 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
>>> 
 Yes I thought something similar when trashing 2 hours to try to get the
 JAXB generator running.
 Just to figure it might be broken beyond repair...
 Thanks that you at least confirm this view and spare me further
 investigation.
 
 There are 2 options on the table
 
 1.) Do a quick hack and add the  support directly in the code
 
>>> +1
>>> 
 2.) Invest more time and fix the JAXB source generator setup
 
>>> No point today to do it. Can be worse keeping it as a comment somewhere
>> for
>>> future specs if needed but not for existing one IMHO.
>>> 
 
 I'm tempted to go 1.
 But of course I'm happy if someone finds a bit time to fix the generator
 setup.
 David, you did this initially. Is it worth it and can you free up some
 time for it?
 
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
 
> Am 31.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibu...@gmail.com
> :
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> For simple updates like that I tend to update the sax p

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

yes yank the profile if not usable and if no one should use it to avoid
mistakes


--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

>
> Then we should at least add a README?
> Or at least document that profile in the pom.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> > Am 31.01.2018 um 09:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau  >:
> >
> > 2018-01-31 9:34 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> >
> >> Yes I thought something similar when trashing 2 hours to try to get the
> >> JAXB generator running.
> >> Just to figure it might be broken beyond repair...
> >> Thanks that you at least confirm this view and spare me further
> >> investigation.
> >>
> >> There are 2 options on the table
> >>
> >> 1.) Do a quick hack and add the  support directly in the code
> >>
> > +1
> >
> >> 2.) Invest more time and fix the JAXB source generator setup
> >>
> > No point today to do it. Can be worse keeping it as a comment somewhere
> for
> > future specs if needed but not for existing one IMHO.
> >
> >>
> >> I'm tempted to go 1.
> >> But of course I'm happy if someone finds a bit time to fix the generator
> >> setup.
> >> David, you did this initially. Is it worth it and can you free up some
> >> time for it?
> >>
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 31.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>> Hi Mark,
> >>>
> >>> For simple updates like that I tend to update the sax parser manually
> >>> (that's what we did for JSF since most of the model is not handled by
> >> tomee
> >>> anyway).
> >>> For CDI we are supposed to still use JAXB (since there can be a lot of
> >>> beans.xml):
> >>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/
> >> openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/config/
> >> ReadDescriptors.java#L681
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >>>  | Old Blog
> >>>  | Github  >> rmannibucau> |
> >>> LinkedIn 
> >>>
> >>> 2018-01-31 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> >>>
>  Hi folks!
> 
>  I've come down to just 18 failing tests in tck/cdi-embedded.
>  Most of them are EE related (missing privileges exceptions etc)
> 
>  There is one left with the CDI integration:  support.
>  This needs a change in the beans.xml schema.
>  I've added the changes and moved to container/openejb-jee/src/
>  main/resources/META-INF/schema/beans_2_0.xsd
> 
>  But now I totally fail to generate the JAXB sources.
>  I've found the maven profile to start the generator, but it simply
> fails
>  with an Exception.
> 
>  Anyone able to help out?
> 
>  The work is done in fb_tomee8
> 
>  Btw, I also tried the attached patch to move to valid urls at least...
> 
> 
>  LieGrue,
>  strub
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

Then we should at least add a README?
Or at least document that profile in the pom.

LieGrue,
strub



> Am 31.01.2018 um 09:59 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> 2018-01-31 9:34 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> 
>> Yes I thought something similar when trashing 2 hours to try to get the
>> JAXB generator running.
>> Just to figure it might be broken beyond repair...
>> Thanks that you at least confirm this view and spare me further
>> investigation.
>> 
>> There are 2 options on the table
>> 
>> 1.) Do a quick hack and add the  support directly in the code
>> 
> +1
> 
>> 2.) Invest more time and fix the JAXB source generator setup
>> 
> No point today to do it. Can be worse keeping it as a comment somewhere for
> future specs if needed but not for existing one IMHO.
> 
>> 
>> I'm tempted to go 1.
>> But of course I'm happy if someone finds a bit time to fix the generator
>> setup.
>> David, you did this initially. Is it worth it and can you free up some
>> time for it?
>> 
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 31.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau >> :
>>> 
>>> Hi Mark,
>>> 
>>> For simple updates like that I tend to update the sax parser manually
>>> (that's what we did for JSF since most of the model is not handled by
>> tomee
>>> anyway).
>>> For CDI we are supposed to still use JAXB (since there can be a lot of
>>> beans.xml):
>>> https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/
>> openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/config/
>> ReadDescriptors.java#L681
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>>>  | Old Blog
>>>  | Github > rmannibucau> |
>>> LinkedIn 
>>> 
>>> 2018-01-31 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
>>> 
 Hi folks!
 
 I've come down to just 18 failing tests in tck/cdi-embedded.
 Most of them are EE related (missing privileges exceptions etc)
 
 There is one left with the CDI integration:  support.
 This needs a change in the beans.xml schema.
 I've added the changes and moved to container/openejb-jee/src/
 main/resources/META-INF/schema/beans_2_0.xsd
 
 But now I totally fail to generate the JAXB sources.
 I've found the maven profile to start the generator, but it simply fails
 with an Exception.
 
 Anyone able to help out?
 
 The work is done in fb_tomee8
 
 Btw, I also tried the attached patch to move to valid urls at least...
 
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
 
 
>> 
>> 

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

2018-01-31 9:34 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :

> Yes I thought something similar when trashing 2 hours to try to get the
> JAXB generator running.
> Just to figure it might be broken beyond repair...
> Thanks that you at least confirm this view and spare me further
> investigation.
>
> There are 2 options on the table
>
> 1.) Do a quick hack and add the  support directly in the code
>
+1

> 2.) Invest more time and fix the JAXB source generator setup
>
No point today to do it. Can be worse keeping it as a comment somewhere for
future specs if needed but not for existing one IMHO.

>
> I'm tempted to go 1.
> But of course I'm happy if someone finds a bit time to fix the generator
> setup.
> David, you did this initially. Is it worth it and can you free up some
> time for it?
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 31.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau  >:
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > For simple updates like that I tend to update the sax parser manually
> > (that's what we did for JSF since most of the model is not handled by
> tomee
> > anyway).
> > For CDI we are supposed to still use JAXB (since there can be a lot of
> > beans.xml):
> > https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/
> openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/config/
> ReadDescriptors.java#L681
> >
> >
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >  | Old Blog
> >  | Github  rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn 
> >
> > 2018-01-31 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> >
> >> Hi folks!
> >>
> >> I've come down to just 18 failing tests in tck/cdi-embedded.
> >> Most of them are EE related (missing privileges exceptions etc)
> >>
> >> There is one left with the CDI integration:  support.
> >> This needs a change in the beans.xml schema.
> >> I've added the changes and moved to container/openejb-jee/src/
> >> main/resources/META-INF/schema/beans_2_0.xsd
> >>
> >> But now I totally fail to generate the JAXB sources.
> >> I've found the maven profile to start the generator, but it simply fails
> >> with an Exception.
> >>
> >> Anyone able to help out?
> >>
> >> The work is done in fb_tomee8
> >>
> >> Btw, I also tried the attached patch to move to valid urls at least...
> >>
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Mark Struberg]

Yes I thought something similar when trashing 2 hours to try to get the JAXB 
generator running.
Just to figure it might be broken beyond repair...
Thanks that you at least confirm this view and spare me further investigation.

There are 2 options on the table

1.) Do a quick hack and add the  support directly in the code
2.) Invest more time and fix the JAXB source generator setup

I'm tempted to go 1.
But of course I'm happy if someone finds a bit time to fix the generator setup.
David, you did this initially. Is it worth it and can you free up some time for 
it?


LieGrue,
strub


> Am 31.01.2018 um 09:20 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> For simple updates like that I tend to update the sax parser manually
> (that's what we did for JSF since most of the model is not handled by tomee
> anyway).
> For CDI we are supposed to still use JAXB (since there can be a lot of
> beans.xml):
> https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/config/ReadDescriptors.java#L681
> 
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github  |
> LinkedIn 
> 
> 2018-01-31 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> 
>> Hi folks!
>> 
>> I've come down to just 18 failing tests in tck/cdi-embedded.
>> Most of them are EE related (missing privileges exceptions etc)
>> 
>> There is one left with the CDI integration:  support.
>> This needs a change in the beans.xml schema.
>> I've added the changes and moved to container/openejb-jee/src/
>> main/resources/META-INF/schema/beans_2_0.xsd
>> 
>> But now I totally fail to generate the JAXB sources.
>> I've found the maven profile to start the generator, but it simply fails
>> with an Exception.
>> 
>> Anyone able to help out?
>> 
>> The work is done in fb_tomee8
>> 
>> Btw, I also tried the attached patch to move to valid urls at least...
>> 
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: TomEE8 TCK status

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Hi Mark,

For simple updates like that I tend to update the sax parser manually
(that's what we did for JSF since most of the model is not handled by tomee
anyway).
For CDI we are supposed to still use JAXB (since there can be a lot of
beans.xml):
https://github.com/apache/tomee/blob/master/container/openejb-core/src/main/java/org/apache/openejb/config/ReadDescriptors.java#L681



Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn 

2018-01-31 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :

> Hi folks!
>
> I've come down to just 18 failing tests in tck/cdi-embedded.
> Most of them are EE related (missing privileges exceptions etc)
>
> There is one left with the CDI integration:  support.
> This needs a change in the beans.xml schema.
> I've added the changes and moved to container/openejb-jee/src/
> main/resources/META-INF/schema/beans_2_0.xsd
>
> But now I totally fail to generate the JAXB sources.
> I've found the maven profile to start the generator, but it simply fails
> with an Exception.
>
> Anyone able to help out?
>
> The work is done in fb_tomee8
>
> Btw, I also tried the attached patch to move to valid urls at least...
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>