You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> on 2008/05/29 19:43:18 UTC
TUSCANY-2344 & 5 - resource & widget validation
Hi
FYI. I've seen a couple of problems with the widget and resource validation
testing during may latest build. CouldNotResolveLocation doesn't seem to be
raise. I've @Ignored these tests for now just in case it's going to affect
others (I changed the test to JUnit4 to make this easy) .
As an aside we should probably go through these tests and convert to Junit4
Also I notice that the original tests I added don't fit into the neat
categorization scheme that has been used subsequently so I'll endeavor to
move the original tests into the new scheme to tidy things up.
Simon
Re: TUSCANY-2344 & 5 - resource & widget validation
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Luciano, the issue is resolved now. It works.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: TUSCANY-2344 & 5 - resource & widget validation
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, for some reason I had to apply your patch manually and missed
that part on the ResourceImplementationProcessor. Please give it a
try, it should be ok now.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Luciano,
> I tried with the latest code, it looks
> like testCalculator(impl.resource.CouldNotResolveLocationTestCase) is
> failing again due to the same issue we saw with the earlier patch. But this
> time itest for implementation.widget is sucessfull as the patch for
> WidgetImplementationProcessor.java got applied appropriately.
>
> Again i could see that the patch is not fully applied
> to ResourceImplementationProcessor.java file. I could see the patch file
> showing the necessary changes, but could not find them in the
> committed code.
>
> Not sure if the patch files that I am creating has some issues here OR is
> something going wrong while the patches are being applied. I would recommend
> to verify the same and let me know if any corrections are needed from my
> side.
>
>
> On 6/3/08, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ram
>>
>> I have just applied the TUSCANY-2362 patch. Could you please take a
>> quick look as I was having issues trying to get a sucessful run of the
>> validation iTest bucket, but I guess it's due to different issues.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Simon,
>> >> I have provided the fix with TUSCANY-2362 for the same.
>> >>
>> >> For Junit4, let me have a look and provide the changes accordingly.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 6/2/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Hi Simon,
>> >> > > After downloading the complete latest code from the repository, i
>> >> noticed
>> >> > > that the reason for the failure in CouldNotResolveLocation for
>> >> > > implementation.resource and implementation.widget validation is due
>> to
>> >> > the
>> >> > > missed code while applying the patch.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The changes suggested in the patch does not seem to appear in the
>> >> > committed
>> >> > > code. For instance TUSCANY-2344 suggested a change in
>> >> > > WidgetImplementationProcessor resolve method as shown below, which
>> is
>> >> > > required for the tests to be sucessfull.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > while (reader.hasNext()) {
>> >> > > @@ -128,8 +149,11 @@
>> >> > > } catch (IOException e) {
>> >> > > ContributionResolveException ce = new
>> >> > > ContributionResolveException(e);
>> >> > > error("ContributionResolveException", resolver, ce);
>> >> > > - throw ce;
>> >> > > + //throw ce;
>> >> > > }
>> >> > > + } else {
>> >> > > + error("CouldNotResolveLocation", resolver,
>> >> > > implementation.getLocation());
>> >> > > + //throw new ContributionResolveException("Could not
>> >> resolve
>> >> > > implementation.widget location: " + implementation.getLocation());
>> >> > > }
>> >> > > Not sure, if i should open a new JIRA OR reopen the older ones to
>> apply
>> >> > the
>> >> > > patch again. Please suggest.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Also would be helpful if you could elobrate more about the
>> conversion
>> >> of
>> >> > > tests to JUnit4. Thakns.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On 5/29/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Hi
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > FYI. I've seen a couple of problems with the widget and resource
>> >> > > validation
>> >> > > > testing during may latest build. CouldNotResolveLocation doesn't
>> seem
>> >> > to
>> >> > > be
>> >> > > > raise. I've @Ignored these tests for now just in case it's going
>> to
>> >> > > affect
>> >> > > > others (I changed the test to JUnit4 to make this easy) .
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > As an aside we should probably go through these tests and convert
>> to
>> >> > > Junit4
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Also I notice that the original tests I added don't fit into the
>> neat
>> >> > > > categorization scheme that has been used subsequently so I'll
>> >> endeavor
>> >> > to
>> >> > > > move the original tests into the new scheme to tidy things up.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Simon
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > Thanks & Regards,
>> >> > > Ramkumar Ramalingam
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi Ram
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you identify which parts of the patch are missing and create a new
>> >> > patch
>> >> > based on just these. As they didn't apply properly in the first place
>> I
>> >> > don't think that trying to apply the existing patch again will have
>> the
>> >> > desired effect.
>> >> >
>> >> > Re. Junit4. Some of our tests in Tuscany use JUnit4 and some of them
>> use
>> >> > older versions of JUnit. As we are creating new tests here it would be
>> >> > convenient to use the latest version of JUnit.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards
>> >> >
>> >> > Simon
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Thanks & Regards,
>> >> Ramkumar Ramalingam
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hi Ram
>> >
>> > Thanks for that. The JUnit4 thing is not an emergency. As we create new
>> > tests we can use JUnit4
>> >
>> > Simon
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Luciano Resende
>> Apache Tuscany Committer
>> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
>> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ramkumar Ramalingam
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: TUSCANY-2344 & 5 - resource & widget validation
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi Luciano,
I tried with the latest code, it looks
like testCalculator(impl.resource.CouldNotResolveLocationTestCase) is
failing again due to the same issue we saw with the earlier patch. But this
time itest for implementation.widget is sucessfull as the patch for
WidgetImplementationProcessor.java got applied appropriately.
Again i could see that the patch is not fully applied
to ResourceImplementationProcessor.java file. I could see the patch file
showing the necessary changes, but could not find them in the
committed code.
Not sure if the patch files that I am creating has some issues here OR is
something going wrong while the patches are being applied. I would recommend
to verify the same and let me know if any corrections are needed from my
side.
On 6/3/08, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ram
>
> I have just applied the TUSCANY-2362 patch. Could you please take a
> quick look as I was having issues trying to get a sucessful run of the
> validation iTest bucket, but I guess it's due to different issues.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Simon,
> >> I have provided the fix with TUSCANY-2362 for the same.
> >>
> >> For Junit4, let me have a look and provide the changes accordingly.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/2/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Simon,
> >> > > After downloading the complete latest code from the repository, i
> >> noticed
> >> > > that the reason for the failure in CouldNotResolveLocation for
> >> > > implementation.resource and implementation.widget validation is due
> to
> >> > the
> >> > > missed code while applying the patch.
> >> > >
> >> > > The changes suggested in the patch does not seem to appear in the
> >> > committed
> >> > > code. For instance TUSCANY-2344 suggested a change in
> >> > > WidgetImplementationProcessor resolve method as shown below, which
> is
> >> > > required for the tests to be sucessfull.
> >> > >
> >> > > while (reader.hasNext()) {
> >> > > @@ -128,8 +149,11 @@
> >> > > } catch (IOException e) {
> >> > > ContributionResolveException ce = new
> >> > > ContributionResolveException(e);
> >> > > error("ContributionResolveException", resolver, ce);
> >> > > - throw ce;
> >> > > + //throw ce;
> >> > > }
> >> > > + } else {
> >> > > + error("CouldNotResolveLocation", resolver,
> >> > > implementation.getLocation());
> >> > > + //throw new ContributionResolveException("Could not
> >> resolve
> >> > > implementation.widget location: " + implementation.getLocation());
> >> > > }
> >> > > Not sure, if i should open a new JIRA OR reopen the older ones to
> apply
> >> > the
> >> > > patch again. Please suggest.
> >> > >
> >> > > Also would be helpful if you could elobrate more about the
> conversion
> >> of
> >> > > tests to JUnit4. Thakns.
> >> > >
> >> > > On 5/29/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hi
> >> > > >
> >> > > > FYI. I've seen a couple of problems with the widget and resource
> >> > > validation
> >> > > > testing during may latest build. CouldNotResolveLocation doesn't
> seem
> >> > to
> >> > > be
> >> > > > raise. I've @Ignored these tests for now just in case it's going
> to
> >> > > affect
> >> > > > others (I changed the test to JUnit4 to make this easy) .
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > As an aside we should probably go through these tests and convert
> to
> >> > > Junit4
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Also I notice that the original tests I added don't fit into the
> neat
> >> > > > categorization scheme that has been used subsequently so I'll
> >> endeavor
> >> > to
> >> > > > move the original tests into the new scheme to tidy things up.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Simon
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Thanks & Regards,
> >> > > Ramkumar Ramalingam
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Hi Ram
> >> >
> >> > Can you identify which parts of the patch are missing and create a new
> >> > patch
> >> > based on just these. As they didn't apply properly in the first place
> I
> >> > don't think that trying to apply the existing patch again will have
> the
> >> > desired effect.
> >> >
> >> > Re. Junit4. Some of our tests in Tuscany use JUnit4 and some of them
> use
> >> > older versions of JUnit. As we are creating new tests here it would be
> >> > convenient to use the latest version of JUnit.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> >
> >> > Simon
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks & Regards,
> >> Ramkumar Ramalingam
> >>
> >
> > Hi Ram
> >
> > Thanks for that. The JUnit4 thing is not an emergency. As we create new
> > tests we can use JUnit4
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany Committer
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: TUSCANY-2344 & 5 - resource & widget validation
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ram
I have just applied the TUSCANY-2362 patch. Could you please take a
quick look as I was having issues trying to get a sucessful run of the
validation iTest bucket, but I guess it's due to different issues.
Thanks
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Simon,
>> I have provided the fix with TUSCANY-2362 for the same.
>>
>> For Junit4, let me have a look and provide the changes accordingly.
>>
>>
>> On 6/2/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Simon,
>> > > After downloading the complete latest code from the repository, i
>> noticed
>> > > that the reason for the failure in CouldNotResolveLocation for
>> > > implementation.resource and implementation.widget validation is due to
>> > the
>> > > missed code while applying the patch.
>> > >
>> > > The changes suggested in the patch does not seem to appear in the
>> > committed
>> > > code. For instance TUSCANY-2344 suggested a change in
>> > > WidgetImplementationProcessor resolve method as shown below, which is
>> > > required for the tests to be sucessfull.
>> > >
>> > > while (reader.hasNext()) {
>> > > @@ -128,8 +149,11 @@
>> > > } catch (IOException e) {
>> > > ContributionResolveException ce = new
>> > > ContributionResolveException(e);
>> > > error("ContributionResolveException", resolver, ce);
>> > > - throw ce;
>> > > + //throw ce;
>> > > }
>> > > + } else {
>> > > + error("CouldNotResolveLocation", resolver,
>> > > implementation.getLocation());
>> > > + //throw new ContributionResolveException("Could not
>> resolve
>> > > implementation.widget location: " + implementation.getLocation());
>> > > }
>> > > Not sure, if i should open a new JIRA OR reopen the older ones to apply
>> > the
>> > > patch again. Please suggest.
>> > >
>> > > Also would be helpful if you could elobrate more about the conversion
>> of
>> > > tests to JUnit4. Thakns.
>> > >
>> > > On 5/29/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi
>> > > >
>> > > > FYI. I've seen a couple of problems with the widget and resource
>> > > validation
>> > > > testing during may latest build. CouldNotResolveLocation doesn't seem
>> > to
>> > > be
>> > > > raise. I've @Ignored these tests for now just in case it's going to
>> > > affect
>> > > > others (I changed the test to JUnit4 to make this easy) .
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > As an aside we should probably go through these tests and convert to
>> > > Junit4
>> > > >
>> > > > Also I notice that the original tests I added don't fit into the neat
>> > > > categorization scheme that has been used subsequently so I'll
>> endeavor
>> > to
>> > > > move the original tests into the new scheme to tidy things up.
>> > > >
>> > > > Simon
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Thanks & Regards,
>> > > Ramkumar Ramalingam
>> > >
>> >
>> > Hi Ram
>> >
>> > Can you identify which parts of the patch are missing and create a new
>> > patch
>> > based on just these. As they didn't apply properly in the first place I
>> > don't think that trying to apply the existing patch again will have the
>> > desired effect.
>> >
>> > Re. Junit4. Some of our tests in Tuscany use JUnit4 and some of them use
>> > older versions of JUnit. As we are creating new tests here it would be
>> > convenient to use the latest version of JUnit.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Simon
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Ramkumar Ramalingam
>>
>
> Hi Ram
>
> Thanks for that. The JUnit4 thing is not an emergency. As we create new
> tests we can use JUnit4
>
> Simon
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: TUSCANY-2344 & 5 - resource & widget validation
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> I have provided the fix with TUSCANY-2362 for the same.
>
> For Junit4, let me have a look and provide the changes accordingly.
>
>
> On 6/2/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > > After downloading the complete latest code from the repository, i
> noticed
> > > that the reason for the failure in CouldNotResolveLocation for
> > > implementation.resource and implementation.widget validation is due to
> > the
> > > missed code while applying the patch.
> > >
> > > The changes suggested in the patch does not seem to appear in the
> > committed
> > > code. For instance TUSCANY-2344 suggested a change in
> > > WidgetImplementationProcessor resolve method as shown below, which is
> > > required for the tests to be sucessfull.
> > >
> > > while (reader.hasNext()) {
> > > @@ -128,8 +149,11 @@
> > > } catch (IOException e) {
> > > ContributionResolveException ce = new
> > > ContributionResolveException(e);
> > > error("ContributionResolveException", resolver, ce);
> > > - throw ce;
> > > + //throw ce;
> > > }
> > > + } else {
> > > + error("CouldNotResolveLocation", resolver,
> > > implementation.getLocation());
> > > + //throw new ContributionResolveException("Could not
> resolve
> > > implementation.widget location: " + implementation.getLocation());
> > > }
> > > Not sure, if i should open a new JIRA OR reopen the older ones to apply
> > the
> > > patch again. Please suggest.
> > >
> > > Also would be helpful if you could elobrate more about the conversion
> of
> > > tests to JUnit4. Thakns.
> > >
> > > On 5/29/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > FYI. I've seen a couple of problems with the widget and resource
> > > validation
> > > > testing during may latest build. CouldNotResolveLocation doesn't seem
> > to
> > > be
> > > > raise. I've @Ignored these tests for now just in case it's going to
> > > affect
> > > > others (I changed the test to JUnit4 to make this easy) .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As an aside we should probably go through these tests and convert to
> > > Junit4
> > > >
> > > > Also I notice that the original tests I added don't fit into the neat
> > > > categorization scheme that has been used subsequently so I'll
> endeavor
> > to
> > > > move the original tests into the new scheme to tidy things up.
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks & Regards,
> > > Ramkumar Ramalingam
> > >
> >
> > Hi Ram
> >
> > Can you identify which parts of the patch are missing and create a new
> > patch
> > based on just these. As they didn't apply properly in the first place I
> > don't think that trying to apply the existing patch again will have the
> > desired effect.
> >
> > Re. Junit4. Some of our tests in Tuscany use JUnit4 and some of them use
> > older versions of JUnit. As we are creating new tests here it would be
> > convenient to use the latest version of JUnit.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ramkumar Ramalingam
>
Hi Ram
Thanks for that. The JUnit4 thing is not an emergency. As we create new
tests we can use JUnit4
Simon
Re: TUSCANY-2344 & 5 - resource & widget validation
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi Simon,
I have provided the fix with TUSCANY-2362 for the same.
For Junit4, let me have a look and provide the changes accordingly.
On 6/2/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Simon,
> > After downloading the complete latest code from the repository, i noticed
> > that the reason for the failure in CouldNotResolveLocation for
> > implementation.resource and implementation.widget validation is due to
> the
> > missed code while applying the patch.
> >
> > The changes suggested in the patch does not seem to appear in the
> committed
> > code. For instance TUSCANY-2344 suggested a change in
> > WidgetImplementationProcessor resolve method as shown below, which is
> > required for the tests to be sucessfull.
> >
> > while (reader.hasNext()) {
> > @@ -128,8 +149,11 @@
> > } catch (IOException e) {
> > ContributionResolveException ce = new
> > ContributionResolveException(e);
> > error("ContributionResolveException", resolver, ce);
> > - throw ce;
> > + //throw ce;
> > }
> > + } else {
> > + error("CouldNotResolveLocation", resolver,
> > implementation.getLocation());
> > + //throw new ContributionResolveException("Could not resolve
> > implementation.widget location: " + implementation.getLocation());
> > }
> > Not sure, if i should open a new JIRA OR reopen the older ones to apply
> the
> > patch again. Please suggest.
> >
> > Also would be helpful if you could elobrate more about the conversion of
> > tests to JUnit4. Thakns.
> >
> > On 5/29/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > FYI. I've seen a couple of problems with the widget and resource
> > validation
> > > testing during may latest build. CouldNotResolveLocation doesn't seem
> to
> > be
> > > raise. I've @Ignored these tests for now just in case it's going to
> > affect
> > > others (I changed the test to JUnit4 to make this easy) .
> > >
> > >
> > > As an aside we should probably go through these tests and convert to
> > Junit4
> > >
> > > Also I notice that the original tests I added don't fit into the neat
> > > categorization scheme that has been used subsequently so I'll endeavor
> to
> > > move the original tests into the new scheme to tidy things up.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Ramkumar Ramalingam
> >
>
> Hi Ram
>
> Can you identify which parts of the patch are missing and create a new
> patch
> based on just these. As they didn't apply properly in the first place I
> don't think that trying to apply the existing patch again will have the
> desired effect.
>
> Re. Junit4. Some of our tests in Tuscany use JUnit4 and some of them use
> older versions of JUnit. As we are creating new tests here it would be
> convenient to use the latest version of JUnit.
>
> Regards
>
> Simon
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam
Re: TUSCANY-2344 & 5 - resource & widget validation
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> After downloading the complete latest code from the repository, i noticed
> that the reason for the failure in CouldNotResolveLocation for
> implementation.resource and implementation.widget validation is due to the
> missed code while applying the patch.
>
> The changes suggested in the patch does not seem to appear in the committed
> code. For instance TUSCANY-2344 suggested a change in
> WidgetImplementationProcessor resolve method as shown below, which is
> required for the tests to be sucessfull.
>
> while (reader.hasNext()) {
> @@ -128,8 +149,11 @@
> } catch (IOException e) {
> ContributionResolveException ce = new
> ContributionResolveException(e);
> error("ContributionResolveException", resolver, ce);
> - throw ce;
> + //throw ce;
> }
> + } else {
> + error("CouldNotResolveLocation", resolver,
> implementation.getLocation());
> + //throw new ContributionResolveException("Could not resolve
> implementation.widget location: " + implementation.getLocation());
> }
> Not sure, if i should open a new JIRA OR reopen the older ones to apply the
> patch again. Please suggest.
>
> Also would be helpful if you could elobrate more about the conversion of
> tests to JUnit4. Thakns.
>
> On 5/29/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > FYI. I've seen a couple of problems with the widget and resource
> validation
> > testing during may latest build. CouldNotResolveLocation doesn't seem to
> be
> > raise. I've @Ignored these tests for now just in case it's going to
> affect
> > others (I changed the test to JUnit4 to make this easy) .
> >
> >
> > As an aside we should probably go through these tests and convert to
> Junit4
> >
> > Also I notice that the original tests I added don't fit into the neat
> > categorization scheme that has been used subsequently so I'll endeavor to
> > move the original tests into the new scheme to tidy things up.
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ramkumar Ramalingam
>
Hi Ram
Can you identify which parts of the patch are missing and create a new patch
based on just these. As they didn't apply properly in the first place I
don't think that trying to apply the existing patch again will have the
desired effect.
Re. Junit4. Some of our tests in Tuscany use JUnit4 and some of them use
older versions of JUnit. As we are creating new tests here it would be
convenient to use the latest version of JUnit.
Regards
Simon
Re: TUSCANY-2344 & 5 - resource & widget validation
Posted by Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi Simon,
After downloading the complete latest code from the repository, i noticed
that the reason for the failure in CouldNotResolveLocation for
implementation.resource and implementation.widget validation is due to the
missed code while applying the patch.
The changes suggested in the patch does not seem to appear in the committed
code. For instance TUSCANY-2344 suggested a change in
WidgetImplementationProcessor resolve method as shown below, which is
required for the tests to be sucessfull.
while (reader.hasNext()) {
@@ -128,8 +149,11 @@
} catch (IOException e) {
ContributionResolveException ce = new
ContributionResolveException(e);
error("ContributionResolveException", resolver, ce);
- throw ce;
+ //throw ce;
}
+ } else {
+ error("CouldNotResolveLocation", resolver,
implementation.getLocation());
+ //throw new ContributionResolveException("Could not resolve
implementation.widget location: " + implementation.getLocation());
}
Not sure, if i should open a new JIRA OR reopen the older ones to apply the
patch again. Please suggest.
Also would be helpful if you could elobrate more about the conversion of
tests to JUnit4. Thakns.
On 5/29/08, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> FYI. I've seen a couple of problems with the widget and resource validation
> testing during may latest build. CouldNotResolveLocation doesn't seem to be
> raise. I've @Ignored these tests for now just in case it's going to affect
> others (I changed the test to JUnit4 to make this easy) .
>
>
> As an aside we should probably go through these tests and convert to Junit4
>
> Also I notice that the original tests I added don't fit into the neat
> categorization scheme that has been used subsequently so I'll endeavor to
> move the original tests into the new scheme to tidy things up.
>
> Simon
>
--
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam