Hi Simon,
I have provided the fix with TUSCANY-2362 for the same.
For Junit4, let me have a look and provide the changes accordingly.
On 6/2/08, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Simon,
> > After downloading the complete latest code from the repository, i noticed
> > that the reason for the failure in CouldNotResolveLocation for
> > implementation.resource and implementation.widget validation is due to
> the
> > missed code while applying the patch.
> >
> > The changes suggested in the patch does not seem to appear in the
> committed
> > code. For instance TUSCANY-2344 suggested a change in
> > WidgetImplementationProcessor resolve method as shown below, which is
> > required for the tests to be sucessfull.
> >
> > while (reader.hasNext()) {
> > @@ -128,8 +149,11 @@
> > } catch (IOException e) {
> > ContributionResolveException ce = new
> > ContributionResolveException(e);
> > error("ContributionResolveException", resolver, ce);
> > - throw ce;
> > + //throw ce;
> > }
> > + } else {
> > + error("CouldNotResolveLocation", resolver,
> > implementation.getLocation());
> > + //throw new ContributionResolveException("Could not resolve
> > implementation.widget location: " + implementation.getLocation());
> > }
> > Not sure, if i should open a new JIRA OR reopen the older ones to apply
> the
> > patch again. Please suggest.
> >
> > Also would be helpful if you could elobrate more about the conversion of
> > tests to JUnit4. Thakns.
> >
> > On 5/29/08, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > FYI. I've seen a couple of problems with the widget and resource
> > validation
> > > testing during may latest build. CouldNotResolveLocation doesn't seem
> to
> > be
> > > raise. I've @Ignored these tests for now just in case it's going to
> > affect
> > > others (I changed the test to JUnit4 to make this easy) .
> > >
> > >
> > > As an aside we should probably go through these tests and convert to
> > Junit4
> > >
> > > Also I notice that the original tests I added don't fit into the neat
> > > categorization scheme that has been used subsequently so I'll endeavor
> to
> > > move the original tests into the new scheme to tidy things up.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Ramkumar Ramalingam
> >
>
> Hi Ram
>
> Can you identify which parts of the patch are missing and create a new
> patch
> based on just these. As they didn't apply properly in the first place I
> don't think that trying to apply the existing patch again will have the
> desired effect.
>
> Re. Junit4. Some of our tests in Tuscany use JUnit4 and some of them use
> older versions of JUnit. As we are creating new tests here it would be
> convenient to use the latest version of JUnit.
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
