Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Open Liberty compatibility issues

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

We put the additional
Challenge information in the Certification Request because I thought it
completed the informational package.  We could have left that information
out and nobody would have questioned anything.  All of the posted
results would still have indicated zero failures.  Should we just
remove that challenge information from the CR?  We provided this information
to be open, not to invite scrutiny.  I would think we want to encourage
compatible implementations...

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



From:
       Bill
Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Kevin Sutter <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       09/03/2019
06:12 PM
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Open Liberty compatibility issues

---

Did you submit test challenges against
Java EE 8 that were approved?

Has the Java EE 8 TCK moved forward since we contributed it to Jakarta
EE and so we're just out of sync?

I don't know what you mean by "Weld performed that testing". 
Do you mean that the standalone version of Weld was tested with the Dependency
Injection TCK, and you just incorporated that already tested version of
Weld?

If you're just using Weld unchanged, you should be able to run the Dependency
Injection TCK against it yourself.  Does that not work?

Of course, if you're using Weld unchanged, and Weld was already tested
with the Dependency Injection TCK, there's not much point in you testing
it again.


Kevin Sutter wrote on 9/3/19 3:22 PM:
Bill and others,
The first two (JSF and JSON-B) are just documenting the same issues that
we ran into with testing Java EE 8 with WebSphere Liberty.  The issues
were "lost" in the move, so we wanted to document the problems.
 We fully understand that these can't be real TCK Challenges yet since
none of this is final.  We just wanted to document the issues and
indicate that we're following the same workarounds that we did for WebSphere
Liberty.

The third one is new and kind of unique.  Open Liberty uses Weld (RI
for Java EE CDI).  We did not run the standalone DI TCK in the past
because Weld performed that testing.  So, I would assume that this
approach would be sufficient for Jakarta EE as well.  Because as you
said, getting this DI TCK to run in a Jakarta EE container would be a non-trivial
task.

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



From:        Bill
Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:        Jakarta
specification committee <jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        09/03/2019
04:29 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL]
[jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Open Liberty compatibility issues
Sent by:        jakarta.ee-spec.committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

I'm not sure this is the right place for this discussion.  Please
let me know if you think this should be moved to the platform-dev mailing
list or elsewhere.

At the end of the Compatibility
Certification Request for Open Liberty,
it lists these issues:

Relevant challenges & resolution:
Signaturetest - Implemented work around to allow testing of remaining packages.
eclipse-ee4j/faces-api#1474
JSONB - Excluded tests.
eclipse-ee4j/jsonb-api#180
DI TCK requires SeContainer
javax-inject/javax-inject#39

Since we've committed that the Jakarta EE 8 TCKs will be identical to the
Java EE 8 TCKs, we can't fix any of these issues in the TCKs for the Jakarta
EE 8 release.  We can consider these as TCK challenges after the Jakarta
EE 8 release is approved, and release updated TCKs to address the challenges
per our process, soon after Jakarta EE 8.

Do you agree?


The first item in the list above is problematic...

It's a signature test issue.  For Java EE, we would release an alternate
signature test, to allow products to pass either the original or updated
signature test.  For Jakarta EE we decide we would not create alternate
tests.  We can't exclude the signature test.  If we update the
signature test, products that have passed the existing Jakarta EE 8 TCKs,
and all Java EE 8 products, will fail the updated test and thus won't be
Jakarta EE 8 compatible.

How would you like to handle such a case?


For the second item in the list above, it seems that we've agreed to exclude
the challenged tests.  An updated version of the JSONB TCK can be
produced soon after Jakarta EE 8.  We can use this as a test case
for how to approve an update to a TCK without a corresponding spec update.

Can someone describe the process for approving a TCK update without a corresponding
spec update?


The third item in the list above was filed only recently and hasn't been
evaluated.  If I understand it correctly, the Dependency Injection
TCK assumes that you have a "standalone" implementation of Dependency
Injection, and can thus test it outside of a Jakarta EE container. 
That's clearly not a requirement of Jakarta EE, nor of Java EE.  I
assume this challenge was filed for Open Liberty because it doesn't not
include a Dependency Injection implementation that can be used outside
of the Jakarta EE containers.

WebSphere Liberty is Java EE 8 compatible, how did it run the Dependency
Injection TCK?  Is Open Liberty using a different Dependency Injection
implementation?

Converting the Dependency Injection TCK to be able to work inside a Jakarta
EE container is likely a non-trivial task.  Excluding all of the Dependency
Injection tests seems unacceptable.

How would you recommend that we address this test challenge?
_______________________________________________
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




_______________________________________________
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