Just wondering how this is comming along?
-regards Nino
On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 11:47:24 AM UTC+2, laeubi wrote:
>
> The test are running fine now :-)
> I'll try to prepare a release of a 4.0.0 Version for Wicket 7 then we
> can move on to wicket 8 as a next step
>
> Am 28.06.2017 15:21,
ok great :)
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:47 AM, 'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J <
ops4j@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> The test are running fine now :-)
> I'll try to prepare a release of a 4.0.0 Version for Wicket 7 then we can
> move on to wicket 8 as a next step
>
> Am 28.06.2017 15:21, schrieb nino
The test are running fine now :-)
I'll try to prepare a release of a 4.0.0 Version for Wicket 7 then we
can move on to wicket 8 as a next step
Am 28.06.2017 15:21, schrieb nino martinez wael:
just made a single commit..
--
--
--
OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org -
Didn't know we have an example/test for it :-D
I'll take a look on this on friday...
Am 28.06.2017 15:19, schrieb nino martinez wael:
I do have an problem on:
http://localhost:8181/blueprint/wiquery/
Wiquery seems to be discontinued. And it only supports wicket 7..
Maybe we should abandon
just made a single commit..
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:21 PM, nino martinez wael <
nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes I am on 3.1.x
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:16 PM, 'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J <
> ops4j@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Have you checked out the branch v3.1.x? For me it
yes I am on 3.1.x
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:16 PM, 'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J <
ops4j@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Have you checked out the branch v3.1.x? For me it fails the karaf test
> with a 401 (Unauthorized) for some reason .-(
>
> Am 28.06.2017 15:11, schrieb nino martinez wael:
>
> Hmm
I do have an problem on:
http://localhost:8181/blueprint/wiquery/
Wiquery seems to be discontinued. And it only supports wicket 7.. Maybe we
should abandon support for it.?
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:34 PM, 'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J <
ops4j@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Yep, I'll see if i
Hmm seems I do not have any issues with tests on karaf.. What was the
problem specifically?
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:34 PM, 'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J <
ops4j@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Yep, I'll see if i can bulid a snapshot version to test with wicket 8, but
> first must sort out the
Yep, I'll see if i can bulid a snapshot version to test with wicket 8,
but first must sort out the strange karaf test failure, do you think you
can take a look at those tests also?
Am 21.06.2017 07:15, schrieb nino martinez wael:
Hi Christoph
Looks like WICKET-6402 already are resolved?
Hi Christoph
Looks like WICKET-6402 already are resolved?
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:03 AM, 'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J <
ops4j@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> As long as there are no API-breaks within Pax-Wicket it doesen't matter,
> client-code has to choose of course if the want 7 or 8, but
As long as there are no API-breaks within Pax-Wicket it doesen't matter,
client-code has to choose of course if the want 7 or 8, but I can only
check this if Wicket adds OSGi-Headers, so sign up at the Wicket JIRA
and vote for the issue ;-)
Am 19.06.2017 20:44, schrieb nino martinez wael:
Found the issue: The logmessage simply has wrong parameter order and a
missleading logger name, beside this this has no impact on the code
since we scan the classpath for pax-wicket annotations
The real cause for the waring is:
OK i've removed the pax web dependency from the test.. But now I am getting
this, could it be because of blueprint and springdm depends on pax-web
somehow?:
org.ops4j.pax.wicket.service[org.ops4j.pax.wicket.internal.extender.PaxWicketBundleListener]
: Class
I have not, will do so tomorrow.. No hassle, it's just fine.. Thought an
experimental release could be okay?
On 13 Jun 2017 15:54, "'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J" <
ops4j@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Hi nino,
>
> sadly I have not had time to take a look, did you tried with the felix
>
Hi nino,
sadly I have not had time to take a look, did you tried with the felix
http-service in the mean time?
Am 13.06.2017 12:27, schrieb nino martinez wael:
Time has passed again.. Im wondering if it would be okay to release an
experimental or milestone release with the felix test
Time has passed again.. Im wondering if it would be okay to release an
experimental or milestone release with the felix test disabled?
regards Nino
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 11:25:47 AM UTC+2, laeubi wrote:
>
> I can try to take a look at it next week, just wondering ig the
>
I can try to take a look at it next week, just wondering ig the
WhiteboardService is needed for the test at all? Pax Wicket does only
require a simple http-service so you can even try to drop pax-web and
use the (simpler) felix-http service for this use case.
Am 24.05.2017 10:31, schrieb nino
Yes I agree Christoph, thats why I wrote the list..Nothing came out of it
though..
Se here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/ops4j/ahQOfLYXmAM
All you are asking for are described there. And yes I have tried
cleaning/deleting my local repo and run a clean install.
Thanks for your
Hi nino,
the goal should be to more test per release and not to disable existing
ones.
It is a little hard to help without exact informations, what is exacly
the problem with the test:
- What tests(s) are affected
- What fails (e.g. what bundles do not resolve etc.)
- Whats your
19 matches
Mail list logo
