db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Release branch of JDO 2.0
Date Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:05:45 GMT

On Mar 29, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Martin Zaun wrote:

>
> 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'm going to address all of the issues currently annotated as "fix  
for 2.0 final" today. [As soon as JIRA is alive again]
>
> 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).

This sounds like a reasonable approach. I don't know if there is  
value in adding duplicate assertions to the test cases. I think these  
can be handled by referring the duplicates to the state transition  
section of the assertion spreadsheet.
>
> 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.

The structure of the StateTransition test class makes it difficult to  
identity the specific assertion causing the failure, but the enhanced  
messages on failure make it clear that there is a violation of the  
lifecycle table and the text indicates the exact scenario that is  
failing.

Craig
>
> Martin

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message