Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] Requiring visibility on optional feature

[Scott Stark <sstark@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Oh brother, so that optional components section is basically a politician's truth or some proof of Godel's incompleteness theorem. There are no optional components except for the disjoint set of technologies between the web and full profiles. Why even have tests for this? If you want to have tech from the full profile in the web profile, run the full profile tck tests.

On Jul 15, 2021 at 9:35:30 AM, Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 7/15/21 8:58 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:

I like the approach of having the TCK results highlight the optional vs required aspects of the Specification.  But, that will be easier said than done.  I know the Platform TCK is very convoluted with the parameters required to run or not run the optional tests.  And, the actual results do not highlight this aspect in the least.  So, as stated below...  We would have a ways to go to get this right, but I like the desire.

FYI just for more background, the Platform TCK keyword.properties currently maps the keywords to certain Platform TCK test folders.  Note that the `javaee_optional` + `javaee_web_profile_optional` are (too) big test buckets.

Please also note that while the Web Profile specification does not define any optional components, Web Profile implementations can include Full Platform technologies/components (e.g. appclient container tests are included for Web Profile testing only if `javaee_web_profile_optional` keyword is specified).

At a high level, with the EE 10 Platform TCK, I think we will have more flexible capabilities via JUnit5 LauncherDiscoveryRequest + DiscoveryFilter as well as TestNG test groups, however the actual tests for each desired optional capability also need to be isolated from the other optional capabilities in order to allow for more specific test categories.    We will be discussing these options on the Platform TCK mailing list in more detail.