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
