Sorry, for some reason I had to apply your patch manually and missed
that part on the ResourceImplementationProcessor. Please give it a
try, it should be ok now.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
