Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] TCK URLs...

On 8/5/20 3:56 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
I'm finding several inconsistencies with the TCK references in the Specification PRs, especially with the directory structures and expected locations.

Question: Should the Specification PRs include the TCK zip SHA as a way of ensuring that the TCK zip contents do not unexpectedly change during the PR process (or that TCK zip contents didn't change a second before the Spec Committee member ran the "promote" script)?

In the file for the TCK location, we should be specifying this directory structure:_ __{spec}/x.y/jakarta-{spec}  (this is in our checklist, so I think we're good with this)

But, where should the "staged" version of the TCK be located?

I'm tuned in here to find out. :-)

We have an item in the PR checklist to identify the staged location.  I have seen the following directory structures being referenced..._

__ an example)_

With Jakarta EE 8, it looks like we expected the TCKs to be staged in the *"promoted"*directory (per a quick sampling of the past PRs - except for cdi and bv...). How the TCKs get to the "staged-900" and "promoted" directories is a mystery to me.

Your not asking but in case anyone is curious, we have Platform TCK jobs that copy the TCKs to the "staged-900" + "promoted" directories. We also created 12 open issues [1] that describe the Jenkins jobs that are used. However, the Platform TCK jobs that copy TCKs into ^ folders, are only runnable by Platform TCK committers.

We started to discuss it on this morning's Spec Committee call.  Maybe we can continue this conversation here instead of waiting for next week's call...

Just for completeness... after a ballot is completed, then a Spec Committee member runs a script to "promote" the final TCK to this location as defined in the file (above).

IMO, if we could pass the TCK ZIP SHA into the "promote" script so the script could validate that the TCK contents didn't change, that would be a good validation step.



Back to the top