Hi Kevin, all,
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 6:17 PM Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx
> We are very close to having a workable version of the Jakarta EE 9 Platform and Web Profile APIs. Just waiting on Jakarta Faces... They're working on it... :-)
Sounds like excellent progress, thanks everyone!
> The next item on our TODO list is the updating of the TCKs -- both the individual TCKs as well as the Platform TCK. Our goal for completing this activity was next Friday, March 13. That does not look feasible at this point. But, I would like to get a reading on where we are at with this portion of the exercise.
> I created a new column in our Project Board for TCK Updated. Based on the Checklist in each of the Issues, I moved three Projects to that status. I'm guessing there are more Projects that could be moved. If you have updated your TCK, please update your Checklist and move the Issue to the TCK Updated column. As the Platform TCK team starts pulling in the various TCKs for the Jakarta EE 9 TCK, then at least they'll know the expected content.
It gets a little fuzzy, as there are some standalone TCKs contained in the Platform TCK, not a big deal but wanted to mention that.
For the Platform TCK, I think the steps might be:
- Update Platform TCK to pull the EE 9 SPEC jars, I'm not sure of which ant build script contains this.
- Do a global search and replace in Platform TCK sources, to switch from javax => jakarta package.
- Change various references to Jakarta EE 8 to instead reference EE 9.
- Merge these changes into one branch and try to build the Platform + standalone TCKS contained in Platform.
- Update the external standalone TCKs: cdi-tck, beanvalidation-tck, jaf-tck, mail-tck, jaxb-tck, batch-tck, injection-tck) and any other TCK related projects. Each external standalone TCK should be built to verify the changes.
I assume that actually passing each of the TCKs, is a separate step.
From what I recall from previous discussions, we would like to include JDK 11 support in the TCKs as well, but that is not required, is that correct?