Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] TCK tests in the same repo as API and Spec
+1 Kevin! I think the TCK in Jakarta raises the bar higher for people to run TCK freely. As a contributor, I would like to be able to add TCKs whenever I propose API/Spec changes. Otherwise, we will run out of sync in no time. Therefore, I support what Andy proposed to split TCK and rehome them to be with where it should belong. I speak directly from my own experience of working on MicroProfile. It is great to add tests together with spec or api changes to demonstrate the full piece.

As for releasing TCKs separately:
1. When releasing a new version of a spec, we release API/Spec/TCK and they have either major or minor version changes. They share the same version. With the same version, we know which version of TCK we should execute for the version of Spec you choose.
2. If we found any bugs in TCK, we can do a patch release for the project, which produces a micro/patch version release of API/Spec/TCK so that runtimes can execute the new TCK while end users are not affected.
The above fits in well with the general understanding of major/minor/micro release.

HTH
Thanks
Emily

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 1:40 PM Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jan,
You bring up some excellent points.  Having a well thought out plan before jumping in with both feet would be nice.  But, on the other hand, we don't want to stifle the excited effort that Andy is demonstrating.  It's a tough line.  Maybe we need to allow one or two teams to experiment with the processes and see what it takes.  And, then we can take those experiences and develop a plan that works across all the projects.

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter



From:        Jan Supol <jan.supol@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:        jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:        01/31/2020 15:02
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] TCK tests in the same repo as API and Spec
Sent by:        jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



The discussion on the various email lists is quite extensive, and I
admit I do not follow every thread that is discussed. But I am waiting
for the plan from any of the committee we have since the transition to
Eclipse Foundation. And I am not aware about any clear statement about
what the final goal is. For start:

- Is the splitting really what is recommended?

- Should the Platform Jakarta EE TCK still be available in the future
after the split?

- Should the interoperability between Specs tests (the tests that
require multiple Specifications to cooperate as it is described in one
or the other specification, the tests that used to be part of the full
CTS only) still be part of the combined (?) Jakarta EE TCK?

- Is there a recommended framework to be used in the future with the
TCKs (such as the existing JavaTest + perhaps Arquillian similarly to
Microprofile + ?)?

Those should be goals presented by the Jakarta representatives before
the TCK repo is started to be ripped apart. Not on email, but clearly on
the main Jakarta informational page (whatever that is now).

-- Jan

On 31.01.2020 20:34, Lance Andersen wrote:
> I also agree with Bill.  There has to be thought  given to CTS
> structure first IMHO so that there is consistency in the test
> structure to make it easier to pull in the standalone tests  and
>  where the platform specific tests are maintained for the standalone
> technologies.
>
> This will take some time to flush this out.  During the Java EE days,
> we did find it easier to work out of one master workspace, but part of
> that was due to the fact there was one team primarily responsible  for
> the test development for all of the Java EE technologies.
>
>> On Jan 31, 2020, at 2:01 PM, dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Bill, you are right. On the other hand the process of splitting has
>> to be started somehow. It will never start with an assumption that
>> some developer with TCK knowledge will take an initiative and start
>> working on it. There are not too many developers like this and no one
>> wants to take a risk and responsibility.
>> On the other hand I don’t think that it’s a right time to do it now
>> as part of Jakarta EE 9 release. I already proposed thatwe will not
>> move JSONB TCK tests from CTS yet. We will do it after Jakarta EE 9
>> is released. We will keep them in sync until that time. Users may use
>> TCK tests in JSONB repo as more convenient way of checking
>> compatibility. But it cannot be used officially for compliance
>> testing for now.
>> -- Dmitry
>> *From:*jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx><jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>>*On Behalf
>> Of*Bill Shannon
>> *Sent:*Friday, January 31, 2020 7:06 PM
>> *To:*jakartaee-platform developer discussions
>> <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>; Andy Guibert
>> <andy.guibert@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:andy.guibert@xxxxxxxxx>>
>> *Subject:*Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] TCK tests in the same repo as
>> API and Spec
>>
>> This has been discussed numerous times over the last 3 years.  No one
>> disagrees with the goal of splitting up the TCK repo.  Whether the
>> individual spec TCKs are in the same repo as the API classes or in a
>> different repo is just a detail.  The challenge is in splitting up
>> the existing TCK repo such that the resulting TCK for each spec is
>> functionally identical to the existing standalone TCKs for the specs,
>> and that the platform TCK is somehow created by combining all the
>> individual TCKs to produce a new platform TCK that is functionally
>> identical to the existing platform TCK.
>>
>> Needless to say, this is not a small job.
>>
>> No one with deep knowledge of the existing TCKs has come forward with
>> a detailed plan for how to achieve the above.  Without that, we're
>> all just wishing and hoping.
>>
>> And I strongly encourage you to*not*just start hacking on the TCK to
>> create what you want for your spec.  We need to solve the larger
>> problem and a bunch of uncoordinated hacks to individual TCKs will
>> not get us there.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> P.S.  You should be able to find some of the previous history of this
>> discussion in the jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list.
>>
>> Andy Guibert wrote on 1/30/20 10:45 AM:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Currently all of the Jakarta EE TCK tests are housed in one big repo
>>> and they use a custom test framework from the Java EE days:
>>> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jakartaee-tck
>>>  It is more convenient to have the TCK tests in the same repo as the
>>> API and spec docs because as the technologies change over time all 3
>>> parts (tck/api/spec) can be updated in the same PR. Additionally,
>>> implementations can then consume the TCK tests as Maven artifacts
>>> and run/verify that they pass the TCK. This is what MicroProfile has
>>> done and it works very well.
>>> As an example, I've started this off with the JSON-B TCK test here:
>>> jsonb-api pr: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jsonb-api/pull/221
>>> yasson (impl) pr: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/yasson/pull/379
>>> Just wanted to share this with the wider dev community and encourage
>>> other specs to follow suit as time permits.
>>> Cheers, Andy
>>> -- IBM
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
>>> jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx  <mailto:jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
>>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
>> jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>> unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
>
> <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>
> <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif><http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>
> <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>Lance
> Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
> Oracle Java Engineering
> 1 Network Drive
> Burlington, MA 01803
> Lance.Andersen@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Lance.Andersen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
> jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev




_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev


--
Thanks
Emily

Back to the top