My opinion is: The GlassFish binary isn't what needs to be
preserved. That isn't being released. It is just a mechanism for
running the the TCK. The thing being released is the API JAR. The
tests will verify that, when using a CI -- GlassFish 5.1, which is
a candidate compatible implementation now (verified by the
prospective Jakarta EE TCK in it's original form).
If the component teams had their own customized TCK tasks, they
could use those as well.
So -- you start with a CI -- in this case Eclipse GlassFish 5.1.
Into that you generate a trial build, and substitute the release
candidate API JAR that you want to validate for compatibility.
You run the TCK tests necessary to validate that API JAR (either
stand-alone TCK tests, or CTS TCK if the component doesn't have a
standalone TCK).
When you get a PASS result for the API JAR from the TCK, you can
make the compatible claim and you have the test result to back it
up.
For the cases of components with stand-alone TCKs, the result is
much more focused. With the CTS, you will have a bunch of results
that don't really matter, to the component you are releasing, but
that's just a consequence of the test suite. If the end-result is
PASS, that component may be considered compatible.
Again, it is the API JAR that needs to be preserved, along with
the test results. That is done, by virtue of staging it to OSSRH,
then finally pushing it to Maven Central. The trial build of
Eclipse GlassFish isn't released and need not be preserved.
Sure, other forms of testing might be more robust, but we decided
that we would allow for this kind of "minimal" validation this
time since we did not need, nor did we want to go to the effort
required to make another release of Eclipse GlassFish. We could
try to preserve the has from GitHub so we could re-create the
build. We could preserve a hash of the build itself, but I don't
think this is required.
That's my take on this, anyway.
-- Ed
On 7/17/2019 11:25 AM, arjan tijms
wrote:
Hi,
The
issue I don’t see how to address is producing a
persistent version of the Glassfish binary with
persistent TCK results as we seem to be requiring for
spec release reviews.
As for the GlassFish binary, what about providing the
location GF was downloaded from (and perhaps a hash of
that binary?), and if build from source for some reason,
the git revision?
For instance, I've been using the following for the
JASPIC TCK run:
And the hash (sha1)
"f63f451aa42a85e40a16766487809772ea547653"
Should we provide those details for the results?
Kind regards,
Arjan
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password,
or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee