Hi Luciano,
I tried with the latest code, it looks
like testCalculator(impl.resource.CouldNotResolveLocationTestCase) is
failing again due to the same issue we saw with the earlier patch. But this
time itest for implementation.widget is sucessfull as the patch for
WidgetImplementationProcessor.java got applied appropriately.
Again i could see that the patch is not fully applied
to ResourceImplementationProcessor.java file. I could see the patch file
showing the necessary changes, but could not find them in the
committed code.
Not sure if the patch files that I am creating has some issues here OR is
something going wrong while the patches are being applied. I would recommend
to verify the same and let me know if any corrections are needed from my
side.
On 6/3/08, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Ram
>
> I have just applied the TUSCANY-2362 patch. Could you please take a
> quick look as I was having issues trying to get a sucessful run of the
> validation iTest bucket, but I guess it's due to different issues.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > Hi Ram
> >
> > Thanks for that. The JUnit4 thing is not an emergency. As we create new
> > tests we can use JUnit4
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany Committer
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
