Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Initial update to remove the web integration tests from the core tck #532

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Feb 26, 2024
Merged

Initial update to remove the web integration tests from the core tck #532

merged 7 commits into from
Feb 26, 2024

Conversation

starksm64
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #529

…529

Signed-off-by: Scott M Stark <starksm64@gmail.com>
@starksm64 starksm64 added this to the CDI 4.1 milestone Jan 31, 2024
@@ -85,11 +83,11 @@ Then:

* `mvn install -f $CDI_TCK_ROOT/artifacts/pom.xml`
* `mvn -Dtck package -f $CDI_TCK_ROOT/weld/jboss-as/pom.xml` - to enable CDI Extension
* `mvn clean verify -Dincontainer -Dcdi.tck-4-0.version=${TCK_VERSION} -f $CDI_TCK_ROOT/weld/lang-model-tck-runner/pom.xml`` - to run the TCK against WildFly
* `mvn clean verify -Dincontainer -Dcdi.tck.version=${TCK_VERSION} -f $CDI_TCK_ROOT/weld/lang-model-tck-runner/pom.xml`` - to run the TCK against WildFly
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The cdi.tck-4.0.version property is for Weld, right? At the moment, Weld uses cdi.tck-4-1.version (and I don't see a PR in https://github.com/weld/core to change it), so this change (here and elsewhere) is wrong.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, there is a separate weld.version for that. How this cdi.tck-4-0.version property was used was to allow one to select a different version of the TCK when running the sample test runner poms. Really this dates back to when one could do minor releases of the TCK without doing a full release, so I just dropped it as it is confusing as to what the purpose is and it just complicates the build and verifying it.

Copy link
Contributor

@manovotn manovotn Feb 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think Ladislav is right here. This command is taken from Weld to execute TCKs against certain TCK version and the property is defined in Weld here as cdi.tck-4-1.version

The reason it's so explicit is that in some point in time Weld had to run against two different TCK majors (around CDI 2/3 IIRC). That being said, I wouldn't mind changing it to cdi.tck.version if that's what you'd prefer.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, that is confusing. Let me look at exactly Weld uses it and how this fits into how the TCK is released now.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can't see why we would want to take the CDI TCK version used by the sample TCK runner from the weld-core-parent pom cdi.tck-4-1.version value. What is missing in the current changes is a default value for the cdi.tck.version and not using filtering on this property when the jboss-runner.pom is copied to the dist weld/jboss-tck-runner/pom.xml file so that one can override the CDI TCK version used. We can talk about it in today's call.

  <properties>
    <!-- This matches the htmlunit version in TCK -->
    <htmlunit.version>2.50.0</htmlunit.version>
    <cdi.tck.version>${project.version}</cdi.tck.version>
  </properties>

…cdi.tck.version property

Signed-off-by: Scott M Stark <starksm64@gmail.com>
@starksm64 starksm64 merged commit 70ca0a8 into jakartaee:master Feb 26, 2024
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Remove the web module for the next release
3 participants