geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <>
Subject Re: [discuss]atinject tck
Date Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:06:31 GMT
It looks like the same general setup as the BVAL tck, in that it uses
the surefire plugin and a suiteXmlFiles which is either provided in the
downloaded TCK files or provided locally (which I don't think we can use
the open web beans overrides unless we have TCK challenges approved by

You should be able to copy the content from
over into our geronimo/tck/branches/3.0/ area and make a
atinject-tck-runner project similar to the validator-tck-runner.  Jarek
already created the required jboss-test-harness-geronimo module to allow
the JBoss TCK testharness to start/stop a Geronimo server, so the
biggest part of the effort would be mapping the openwebbeans profile
from Tomcat over to using Geronimo....

Since the JBoss provided TCKs use ASL 2.0, take a look at their website,
which usually describes in pretty good detail how to run the TCKs in
other app servers.


On 8/11/10 9:30 AM, Lin Sun wrote:
> Hi
> I have been investigating how to run the JSR 330 tck (also called the
> atinject tck), as this is a requirement for Java EE 6 compliance.
> I am able to check out the open web bean project and run its atinject
> tck from the open web bean project checkout dir, using the atinject
> tck runner provided by open web bean   Basically the atinject tck
> runner deploys the tck test classes (note it is not an archive) to a
> stand-alone test container and the atinect tck tests verifies various
> fields/constructors/methods are injected correctly.   The special part
> of the atinject tck is that there is no Java EE archive and all tests
> are written as junit tests.
> My first thought is we could reuse the atinject tck runner from open
> web bean project to run the tck, but the concern is that the tests are
> only deployed to a stand-alone test container instead of the Geronimo
> server.  So I am not sure if that is valid.
> My current thoughts are that atinject tck is relatively small and are
> junit tests thus it is reasonable to run in a stand-alone test
> container.  The JCDI(JSR 299) tck overlaps some of the atinject tck
> and should run with the real Application Server like Geronimo.
> If we also agree with this approach, I think we can just reuse the
> atinject tck runner in open web bean.   WDYT?
> Lin
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kevan Miller <>
> Date: Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:43 PM
> Subject: Re: JCDI and Bean Validation TCKs
> To:
> On Jul 21, 2010, at 12:04 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:
>> Ok, it sounds like more people prefer to move these tcks into a public
>> svn location.
>> So I guess we should create a
>> repo and move the tcks
>> over. There should be no problem with moving the following modules
>> (since it's all Apache licensed stuff):
>> 1) jboss-test-harness-geronimo - integration code between jboss test
>> harness & geronimo which is used by #2 and #3
>> 2) jcdi-testsuite - jcdi tck runner
>> 3) validator-testsuite - bean validation tck runner
> All,
> Please note that the above TCK tests are in our public SVN. Unlike the
> mainstream Java EE TCK tests, which we are required to keep private,
> these tests are Apache licensed. We can discuss them openly. This
> means we have TCK materials in two places (public svn and private
> svn). I *much* prefer to have our TCK materials in public svn. So,
> although it complicates some things, IMO, we should err on the side of
> openness, rather than simplicity...
> --kevan

View raw message