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 andSpec

Bill and I discussed this topic on the jakartaee-tck PR for a while [1], but I believe it's time to try and loop the discussion back to the mailing list to try and get a final decision.

Overall it seems that the platform isn't going to force specs to do TCKs a certain way, and that specs have the freedom to choose. Among JSON-B committers we are in agreement that we want to migrate to do TCKs this way, and JSON-P would also like to follow suit [2].

I'm happy to use JSON-B as a guinea pig to see how it works and react to feedback. 
At this point I don't see any remaining blockers for moving forward with the initial concept, but I will wait for a few days to let people chime in.


On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:12 PM Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andy Guibert wrote on 2/6/20 5:54 PM:
> Right now we have 2 types of TCKs:
> A) CDI and BeanVal use Arquillian+TestNG, and produce their TCKs as maven
> dependencies
> B) All other specs use JavaTest
> I'm proposing to make a 3rd type of TCK (very similar to A) that uses
> Arquillian+JUnit.
Which would only be used by completely new TCKs?  You don't plan to convert any
existing TCKs to this style?

> However, I don't really care what test framework gets used to run the TCKs,
> the main items I care about as a spec developer are:
> 1) API/spec/TCK all in one repo
> 2) Implementations (standalone lib or app server) can _easily_ pull in and run
> the TCKs as a Maven Dependency and doing `mvn test` or `mvn verify`
This looks like another tabs vs. spaces issue.  :-)

All I care about is that the API, spec, and TCK are each in their own repo.  But
we decided not to force either style on projects; projects can structure this in
repos however they feel is best.

Most of our tests aren't produced as Maven artifacts and aren't runnable from
Maven so that's going to take a lot of work.  One of the challenges is that the
"official" signed versions of the TCKs are produced as standalone zip files.

Also, configuring some of these TCKs is significantly non-trivial.  It's now
clear that you'll ever be able to run them with just "mvn test".

> This is what MicroProfile has done and the model works very well. 
> Also, I'm not suggesting we mandate _all_ specs migrate to this way (or
> require all specs to do anything). Rather, I'm suggesting that we tolerate
> specs to migrate to the way CDI/BeanVal does it (except using JUnit instead of
> TestNG preferably).
I don't believe there's any restriction preventing new specs from doing so.

Back to the top