|Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [External] : Re: Interceptors TCK -- what version of Platform TCK?|
Sorry -- I see that I am confused about interceptors. Thank you
Steve for jogging my memory.
Currently there is a TCK on the Interceptors 2.1 specification page -- That TCK link points to CDI 4 TCK. Previously versions of Interceptors used the Platform TCK. I now recall that we couldn't use the Platform TCK at the time we wanted to finalize CDI and CDI has a dependency on Interceptors.
We now have a TCK tracking/consistency issue -- Interceptors refers to CDI 4.0.0 TCK, but CDI is up to 4.0.6.
The CDI TCK user documentation and it doesn't explicitly state
that implementations that pass the CDI TCK qualify as compatible
for Interceptor compatibility (it does say there are lots of tests
but nothing formally conveying a compatibility statement). I think
we want the CDI documents to say that. In the Platform TCK User
Guide it is very explicit: "Jakarta EE 10 Platform TCK provides
compatibility certification verification for implementations
contained in the Platform for the following component
specifications:" (Interceptors appears in the following bullet
In the GlassFish CDI test run (using CDI 4), there are 108
references to Interceptor in the test result. In the Platform TCK
test results, there are 175 tests. This needs to be reconciled so
that we can be confident that the TCK results in consistent and
compatible implementations of Interceptor functionality. The two
suites would, ideally use the same tests for interceptors (and
some of the tests with keyword interceptor may be CDI specific,
not necessarily Interceptor specific).
I know the subject of reorganizing Interceptors to be part of CDI
was raised but I don't recall us making any formal decision about
that. I suspect I was (and likely still would be) reluctant to
actually support that change. I am certain that I at least
stressed caution about not having the same tests in both places.
I think we need to formally decide what we are going to do with this -- I guess for EE 11. There are differences between what is tested (or at least reported) by the CDI and Platform TCK under the keyword Interceptor. This may cause problems if someone were to complete their certification using only the CDI TCK only later to find problems when they attempt to complete a Platform certification that then asserts problems with their (previously validated) Interceptor implementation.
Since the Platform Spec. team is currently the 'owner' of Interceptors, that problem would come to this team.
If it's possible, I think the best would be to refactor what remains in the Platform TCK -- into an independent TCK. Would this be feasible for EE 11 or was there some structural problem with creating this as a completely separate TCK? How much investigation about this has already been accomplished?
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022, 9:02 PM Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm looking over the various specifications and I notice that Interceptors 2.0 just lists the Jakarta EE 9 platform TCK. I believe we are also allowing Jakarta EE 10 Platform TCK as a certification TCK for interceptors (all Platform TCKs can validate for interceptor compatibility). Also (if I recall) CDI implementations do not need to run an additional TCK yet will certify compatible implementations, compatible with Interceptor API.
EE 9 implementations can run the EE 9 Platform TCk but I don't think they can expect to run the EE 10 Platform TCK until they implement interceptors 2.1 (updates dependencies for EE 10 and adds a JPMS module-info descriptor) and implement other EE 10 specs.
So it seems fine to me the way Interceptors 2.0 just lists EE 9 Platform TCK._______________________________________________
I'm wondering how we should convey this information on the Specification page.
I think at the least, we ought to list the Jakarta EE 10 Platform TCK as an approved compatibility validation TCK. I do not believe we want to imply that one must run the EE 9 Platform TCK to certify Interceptors. I think we can consider saying nothing on the interceptors Spec. page about CDI TCK, relying on the CDI TCK to call out the requirement for interceptor compatibility as well as the validation that the TCK verifies interceptor compatibility. By extension, we could say nothing on the Interceptors page but that, at least to me, leaves me wondering -- what would a vendor be expected to do. Perhaps something calling out (on the Spec. page) "Platform products may certify Interceptors compatibility for their product using the latest Platform TCK of the Platform version they are releasing."
Anyone have thoughts on this?
(I realize this is kind of an low priority issue since few if any implementations are going to certify Interceptors outside of one of the other specification bodies (EE Platform or CDI TCKs).
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
_______________________________________________ jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!O674Cxc7wX7g-y9jgaZwr6HEPq7pBlH9gNPrZYEcZuCTpAWwEN24fmvhsQgukpBlyS6yn0APpCpIIto$
Back to the top