|
My mistake, EclipseLink issue is filed correctly: jpa-api#228
(I hadn't updated my information on that project). I believe that
the others with stand-alone TCKs have been moved.
Open MQ: jms-api#239
Mojarra: faces-api#1475
Soteria: security-api#143
I have no news for the Specs. that Bill initially wrote about.
On 8/19/2019 1:42 PM, Ed Bratt wrote:
This inconsistency isn't just found with specifications that do
not have their own TCKs:
- Jakarta Messaging -- certification request is currently an
issue filed against Openmq #482
- Jakarta Persistence -- certification request is currently an
issue filed against EclipseLink #501
- Jakarta Server Faces -- certification request is currently
an issue filed against Mojarra #4620
- Jakarta Security -- certification request is currently an
issue filed against Soteria #260
-- Ed
On 8/19/2019 1:08 PM, Bill Shannon
wrote:
Some of our specs have no standalone TCK and depend on the platform
TCK for testing, such as Enterprise Beans, Managed Beans, and Interceptors.
In these cases, what do we expect for the certification request?
Should there still be a certification request filed against the corresponding
spec project, indicating that the CI is GlassFish and the TCK is the platform
TCK?
Or should the PR just reference the certification request for GlassFish for
the full platform spec?
I'm assuming the former, but it seems that some projects have done the latter,
e.g., https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/interceptor-api/issues/49
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee
|
