db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Zaun <Martin.Z...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Release branch of JDO 2.0
Date Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:50:32 GMT

Michelle, Craig,

Michelle Caisse wrote:
> I have JDO-293, which is dependent on JDO-273 finishing touches.  
> There's also JDO-64 that is still open. And JDO-349.
> 
> -- Michelle

I currently cannot lookup JDO-293 (apache server seems to be down),
so, I'm not sure about your dependency, but I don't anticipate code
changes for JDO-273 (and will set it to resolved after my AI below).

Michelle Caisse wrote:
 >
 > It would be great if you could add anything that you know is missing, as
 > a range of assertion numbers or a set of ranges.  Then I could check it
 > against the spreadsheet and make sure we have all tested assertions
 > marked "yes".

What I'd recommend is that
- the StateTransition tests only refer to A5.9.1..190, which denotes
   the global state transition table in the spec and that
- we mark all other state-transition related assertions in the
   lifecycle tab of the spreadsheets as duplicates of A5.9.1..190, as
   is done for a few (but not all).

I'm currently going over the lifecycle spreadsheet, checking the
transition-related assertions for coverage by A5.9.1..190 and the
newly implemented cases, and preparing a few comments (which I'll
send to you soon).

Now, for the unlikely event that I find any transition assertions not
covered by the global state transition matrix (A5.9.1..190), Craig
would propably rather want to complete the matrix in the spec (errata)
instead of me adding additional assertions to StateTransition*.java.
But even if I did update StateTransition*.java, it only would be for
a message string and a comment.

Martin

Mime
View raw message