geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [discuss]atinject tck
Date Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:40:07 GMT


On 8/11/10 12:58 PM, Lin Sun wrote:
> Hi Donald
> 
> Thanks for the reply.  I am not familar with BVAL tck.  Can you point
> me the suiteXmlFiles?   

After running the validator-tck-runner, take a look at -
	target/dependency/jsr303-tck-suite.xml

Also does the BVAL tck provides a valid
> archive to be deployed to a App server?

Yes, it deploys WARs to the server, but the JBoss testharness creates
them based on the following setting -
    <name>org.jboss.testharness.standalone</name>
        <value>false</value>
    </property>

If you turn on the "write-artifacts-to-disk" profile, then all of the
WARs that are used are created under target/jsr303-artifacts.


-Donald


> 
> Please see more comments in line.
> 
> Lin
> 
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org> wrote:
>> 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
>> Oracle.)
> 
> Could you please explain why we could not use the tck runner from open
> web beans?   If we want to run the tests ourselves, we could copy some
> files to make it happen.  They are all under ASL v2.0.
> 
> atinject tck itself didn't provide any instruction on how to run them,
> other than the java doc.  In the javadoc, it indicates the test needs
> to be configured with your injector.  There is no mentioning of
> running this against a real App Server.  The fact that they didn't
> provide a java ee archive and only provided .class files made me
> believe deploy/configure the class files onto the injector is
> sufficient.
> 

Mime
View raw message