I may be misunderstanding you, but what I meant is configuring your repositories that way will only take effect for those integration tests. I'd think using feature:repo-add would mimic a production setup?
If I'm wrong ignore me, it doesn't feel like specifying repositories that way is overly useful. I could certainly be wrong. Ryan On Jan 19, 2014 5:18 AM, "Christoph Emmersberger" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ryan > > I’m not quite sure if this is really how to has to be. > > (1) The API seems to offer a programmatic behaviour > (2) When you develop a framework for a Karaf container, you do not > neccessarily have your entire config at hand. Therefore, it might make > sense to access the configuration programmatically and do not reconfigure > your container towards a custom Karaf. > (3) There might be a difference when you are working with RELEASES vs. > SNAPSHOTS. While we develop the framework, our intention is to cover also > the integration tests (at least for deployment). Therefore a programmatic > option is preferable from our point of view. > > Best > > Christoph > > On 18 Jan 2014, at 06:09, Ryan Moquin <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would think the way you specified the repository isn't intended to be > used the way you are trying. > > Think about it, the point of an integration test is to simulate running > the project as if it was deployed to a server and running in a normal > environment. So, if that repository is needed as part of the configuration > of Karaf at runtime, you wouldn't configure it usong pax-exam, because it > won't be available. The repo would have to be specified in the karaf > configuration files or added manually at the console....... > > Make sense? Feel free to point out if I'm off my rocker, JB. > > Ryan > On Jan 17, 2014 3:29 PM, "Christoph Emmersberger" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Jean-Baptiste, >> >> the version of PAX-EXAM is 3.3.0 >> >> <pax-exam-version>3.3.0</pax-exam-version> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Christoph >> >> On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:42, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi Christoph, >> > >> > probably a bug in Pax Exam (Karaf container). What is the Pax Exam >> version ? >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > On 01/17/2014 04:40 PM, Christoph Emmersberger wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> >> >> I recently encountered an issue when configuring a new repository as >> >> KarafDistributionBaseConfigurationOption (see [1]). >> >> >> >> What did not work was the following code snippet: >> >> >> >> public Option[] commonOptions() { >> >> return new Option[]{ >> >> karafDistributionConfiguration() >> >> ..., >> >> repository(" >> http://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots-group < >> http://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots-group >> >").allowSnapshots().disableReleases().id("apache") >> >> } >> >> } >> >> >> >> >> >> Instead I had to introduce a workaround via editing the config file >> with: >> >> >> >> editConfigurationFilePut("etc/org.ops4j.pax.url.mvn.cfg", >> >> "org.ops4j.pax.url.mvn.repositories", >> >> "http://repo1.maven.org/maven2@id=central < >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2@id=central>, " >> >> + ... >> >> +" >> http://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots-group@snapshots@noreleases@id=apache >> < >> http://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots-group@snapshots@noreleases@id=apache >> >") >> >> >> >> >> >> Any ideas, why the repository method does not work? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Christoph >> >> >> >> [1] >> >> https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/PAXEXAM-590?jql=project%20%3D%20PAXEXAM >> >> <https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/PAXEXAM-590?jql=project%20=%20PAXEXAM> >> > >> > -- >> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> > [email protected] >> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >> >> >
