You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> on 2018/12/18 09:42:44 UTC
[VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Hi guys,
as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
The staging repo is:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
<https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>
075
My keys is still available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS
Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
PS: this depends on openwebbeans 2.0.9 vote so if OWB vote fails this one
will be cancelled
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 10:42, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Hi guys,
>
> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
>
> The staging repo is:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>
> 075
> My keys is still available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo
> /KEYS
> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
>
> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
[result] [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Which makes 3 +1 bindings so this vote passes, will continue the release
steps
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le ven. 21 déc. 2018 à 10:08, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> +1
>
> Le ven. 21 déc. 2018 à 09:58, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
>> my own +1
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 16:31, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>>
>>> @Bruno: multiple tests are using the same bucket and each test assume it
>>> is resetted between them which is an assumption which is generally false.
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 16:09, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> Romain, That issue does not seem to affect the failing tests.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please elaborate the problem with the 2 CircuitBreaker tests?
>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/12/18 14:27, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/12/18 14:25, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The one you are in charge ;):
>>>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/355
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 15:11, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a link?
>>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/12/18 14:08, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes
>>>>>
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 14:10, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this a know bug registered somewhere?
>>>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/12/18 13:02, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, to the wrong assumption in terms if CDI exception in terms of
>>>>>> error during the deployment. The TCK felt in an unspecified area but we
>>>>>> applied the same workaround we have for CDI tck for both potential
>>>>>> exception in 2.0.9.
>>>>>> Other workarounds, as the circuit breaker bug in the TCK, are in
>>>>>> scope tests so we are good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:56, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was it related to this fix?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Romain,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in order to pass
>>>>>>> the TCK:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Without that, we have these failures:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>>>>>> [ERROR]
>>>>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
>>>>>>> serviceA should throw an Exception in testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on
>>>>>>> iteration 5
>>>>>>> [ERROR]
>>>>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
>>>>>>> in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be fired on iteration 1
>>>>>>> [INFO]
>>>>>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further details on
>>>>>>> the nature of the leak and how the TCK can be improved? I don't see a filed
>>>>>>> issue regarding this problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The staging repo is:
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
>>>>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>
>>>>>>> 075
>>>>>>> My keys is still available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/
>>>>>>> geronimo/KEYS
>>>>>>> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3
>>>>>>> binding +1s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
> --
> Jean-Louis
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>.
+1
Le ven. 21 déc. 2018 à 09:58, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> my own +1
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 16:31, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
>> @Bruno: multiple tests are using the same bucket and each test assume it
>> is resetted between them which is an assumption which is generally false.
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 16:09, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Romain, That issue does not seem to affect the failing tests.
>>>
>>> Can you please elaborate the problem with the 2 CircuitBreaker tests?
>>> Bruno Baptista
>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/12/18 14:27, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Bruno Baptista
>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/12/18 14:25, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>
>>> The one you are in charge ;):
>>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/355
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 15:11, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> Do you have a link?
>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/12/18 14:08, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 14:10, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Is this a know bug registered somewhere?
>>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/12/18 13:02, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, to the wrong assumption in terms if CDI exception in terms of
>>>>> error during the deployment. The TCK felt in an unspecified area but we
>>>>> applied the same workaround we have for CDI tck for both potential
>>>>> exception in 2.0.9.
>>>>> Other workarounds, as the circuit breaker bug in the TCK, are in
>>>>> scope tests so we are good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:56, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Was it related to this fix?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Romain,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in order to pass
>>>>>> the TCK:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without that, we have these failures:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>>>>> [ERROR]
>>>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
>>>>>> serviceA should throw an Exception in testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on
>>>>>> iteration 5
>>>>>> [ERROR]
>>>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
>>>>>> in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be fired on iteration 1
>>>>>> [INFO]
>>>>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further details on
>>>>>> the nature of the leak and how the TCK can be improved? I don't see a filed
>>>>>> issue regarding this problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The staging repo is:
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
>>>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>
>>>>>> 075
>>>>>> My keys is still available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/
>>>>>> geronimo/KEYS
>>>>>> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3
>>>>>> binding +1s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
--
Jean-Louis
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
my own +1
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 16:31, Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> @Bruno: multiple tests are using the same bucket and each test assume it
> is resetted between them which is an assumption which is generally false.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 16:09, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Romain, That issue does not seem to affect the failing tests.
>>
>> Can you please elaborate the problem with the 2 CircuitBreaker tests?
>> Bruno Baptista
>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>
>>
>> On 18/12/18 14:27, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bruno Baptista
>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>
>>
>> On 18/12/18 14:25, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>> The one you are in charge ;):
>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/355
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 15:11, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Do you have a link?
>>> Bruno Baptista
>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/12/18 14:08, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 14:10, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> Is this a know bug registered somewhere?
>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/12/18 13:02, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, to the wrong assumption in terms if CDI exception in terms of error
>>>> during the deployment. The TCK felt in an unspecified area but we applied
>>>> the same workaround we have for CDI tck for both potential exception in
>>>> 2.0.9.
>>>> Other workarounds, as the circuit breaker bug in the TCK, are in scope
>>>> tests so we are good.
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:56, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Was it related to this fix?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Romain,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in order to pass
>>>>> the TCK:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
>>>>>
>>>>> Without that, we have these failures:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>>>> [ERROR]
>>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
>>>>> serviceA should throw an Exception in testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on
>>>>> iteration 5
>>>>> [ERROR]
>>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
>>>>> in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be fired on iteration 1
>>>>> [INFO]
>>>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>>
>>>>> You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further details on the
>>>>> nature of the leak and how the TCK can be improved? I don't see a filed
>>>>> issue regarding this problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
>>>>>
>>>>> The staging repo is:
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
>>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>
>>>>> 075
>>>>> My keys is still available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo
>>>>> /KEYS
>>>>> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
>>>>>
>>>>> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3
>>>>> binding +1s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
@Bruno: multiple tests are using the same bucket and each test assume it is
resetted between them which is an assumption which is generally false.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 16:09, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Romain, That issue does not seem to affect the failing tests.
>
> Can you please elaborate the problem with the 2 CircuitBreaker tests?
> Bruno Baptista
> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
> On 18/12/18 14:27, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>
> Thanks
> Bruno Baptista
> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
> On 18/12/18 14:25, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> The one you are in charge ;):
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/355
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 15:11, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Do you have a link?
>> Bruno Baptista
>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>
>>
>> On 18/12/18 14:08, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 14:10, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Is this a know bug registered somewhere?
>>> Bruno Baptista
>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/12/18 13:02, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>
>>> No, to the wrong assumption in terms if CDI exception in terms of error
>>> during the deployment. The TCK felt in an unspecified area but we applied
>>> the same workaround we have for CDI tck for both potential exception in
>>> 2.0.9.
>>> Other workarounds, as the circuit breaker bug in the TCK, are in scope
>>> tests so we are good.
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:56, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> Was it related to this fix?
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Romain,
>>>>
>>>> I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in order to pass
>>>> the TCK:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
>>>>
>>>> Without that, we have these failures:
>>>>
>>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>>> [ERROR]
>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
>>>> serviceA should throw an Exception in testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on
>>>> iteration 5
>>>> [ERROR]
>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
>>>> in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be fired on iteration 1
>>>> [INFO]
>>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>
>>>> You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further details on the
>>>> nature of the leak and how the TCK can be improved? I don't see a filed
>>>> issue regarding this problem.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
>>>>
>>>> The staging repo is:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>
>>>> 075
>>>> My keys is still available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo
>>>> /KEYS
>>>> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
>>>>
>>>> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3
>>>> binding +1s.
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>
>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com>.
Romain, That issue does not seem to affect the failing tests.
Can you please elaborate the problem with the 2 CircuitBreaker tests?
Bruno Baptista
https://twitter.com/brunobat_
On 18/12/18 14:27, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruno Baptista
> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
> On 18/12/18 14:25, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> The one you are in charge ;):
>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/355
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 15:11, Bruno Baptista <brunobat@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>
>> Do you have a link?
>>
>> Bruno Baptista
>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>
>>
>> On 18/12/18 14:08, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>> Yes
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 14:10, Bruno Baptista <brunobat@gmail.com
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>>
>>> Is this a know bug registered somewhere?
>>>
>>> Bruno Baptista
>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/12/18 13:02, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>> No, to the wrong assumption in terms if CDI exception in
>>>> terms of error during the deployment. The TCK felt in an
>>>> unspecified area but we applied the same workaround we have
>>>> for CDI tck for both potential exception in 2.0.9.
>>>> Other workarounds, as the circuit breaker bug in the TCK,
>>>> are in scope tests so we are good.
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:56, Bruno Baptista
>>>> <brunobat@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Was it related to this fix?
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Romain,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in
>>>>> order to pass the TCK:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
>>>>>
>>>>> Without that, we have these failures:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>>>> [ERROR]
>>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
>>>>> serviceA should throw an Exception in
>>>>> testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on iteration 5
>>>>> [ERROR]
>>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
>>>>> in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be
>>>>> fired on iteration 1
>>>>> [INFO]
>>>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>>
>>>>> You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide
>>>>> further details on the nature of the leak and how the
>>>>> TCK can be improved? I don't see a filed issue
>>>>> regarding this problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo
>>>>>> Safeguard 1.2.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The staging repo is:
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
>>>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>075
>>>>>> My keys is still available in
>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS
>>>>>> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS>
>>>>>> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the
>>>>>> staging repo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it
>>>>>> gets its 3 binding +1s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Raymond Auge <ra...@liferay.com>.
+1
- Ray
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:33 AM Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks
> Bruno Baptista
> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
> On 18/12/18 14:25, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> The one you are in charge ;):
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/355
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 15:11, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Do you have a link?
>> Bruno Baptista
>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>
>>
>> On 18/12/18 14:08, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 14:10, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Is this a know bug registered somewhere?
>>> Bruno Baptista
>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/12/18 13:02, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>
>>> No, to the wrong assumption in terms if CDI exception in terms of error
>>> during the deployment. The TCK felt in an unspecified area but we applied
>>> the same workaround we have for CDI tck for both potential exception in
>>> 2.0.9.
>>> Other workarounds, as the circuit breaker bug in the TCK, are in scope
>>> tests so we are good.
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:56, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> Was it related to this fix?
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Romain,
>>>>
>>>> I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in order to pass
>>>> the TCK:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
>>>>
>>>> Without that, we have these failures:
>>>>
>>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>>> [ERROR]
>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
>>>> serviceA should throw an Exception in testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on
>>>> iteration 5
>>>> [ERROR]
>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
>>>> in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be fired on iteration 1
>>>> [INFO]
>>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>
>>>> You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further details on the
>>>> nature of the leak and how the TCK can be improved? I don't see a filed
>>>> issue regarding this problem.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
>>>>
>>>> The staging repo is:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>
>>>> 075
>>>> My keys is still available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo
>>>> /KEYS
>>>> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
>>>>
>>>> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3
>>>> binding +1s.
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>
>>>>
--
*Raymond Augé* <http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile>
(@rotty3000)
Senior Software Architect *Liferay, Inc.* <http://www.liferay.com>
(@Liferay)
Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance <http://osgi.org> (@OSGiAlliance)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com>.
Thanks
Bruno Baptista
https://twitter.com/brunobat_
On 18/12/18 14:25, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> The one you are in charge ;):
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/355
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 15:11, Bruno Baptista <brunobat@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>
> Do you have a link?
>
> Bruno Baptista
> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
> On 18/12/18 14:08, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> Yes
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 14:10, Bruno Baptista <brunobat@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>
>> Is this a know bug registered somewhere?
>>
>> Bruno Baptista
>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>
>>
>> On 18/12/18 13:02, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>> No, to the wrong assumption in terms if CDI exception in
>>> terms of error during the deployment. The TCK felt in an
>>> unspecified area but we applied the same workaround we have
>>> for CDI tck for both potential exception in 2.0.9.
>>> Other workarounds, as the circuit breaker bug in the TCK,
>>> are in scope tests so we are good.
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:56, Bruno Baptista
>>> <brunobat@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>>
>>> Was it related to this fix?
>>>
>>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Bruno Baptista
>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Romain,
>>>>
>>>> I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in
>>>> order to pass the TCK:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
>>>>
>>>> Without that, we have these failures:
>>>>
>>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>>> [ERROR]
>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
>>>> serviceA should throw an Exception in
>>>> testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on iteration 5
>>>> [ERROR]
>>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
>>>> in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be
>>>> fired on iteration 1
>>>> [INFO]
>>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>>
>>>> You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further
>>>> details on the nature of the leak and how the TCK can
>>>> be improved? I don't see a filed issue regarding this
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Bruno Baptista
>>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard
>>>>> 1.2.0
>>>>>
>>>>> The staging repo is:
>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
>>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>075
>>>>> My keys is still available in
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS
>>>>> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS>
>>>>> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the
>>>>> staging repo.
>>>>>
>>>>> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets
>>>>> its 3 binding +1s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
The one you are in charge ;):
https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/355
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 15:11, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Do you have a link?
> Bruno Baptista
> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
> On 18/12/18 14:08, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> Yes
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 14:10, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Is this a know bug registered somewhere?
>> Bruno Baptista
>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>
>>
>> On 18/12/18 13:02, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>> No, to the wrong assumption in terms if CDI exception in terms of error
>> during the deployment. The TCK felt in an unspecified area but we applied
>> the same workaround we have for CDI tck for both potential exception in
>> 2.0.9.
>> Other workarounds, as the circuit breaker bug in the TCK, are in scope
>> tests so we are good.
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:56, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Was it related to this fix?
>>>
>>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Bruno Baptista
>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Romain,
>>>
>>> I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in order to pass the
>>> TCK:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
>>>
>>> Without that, we have these failures:
>>>
>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>> [ERROR]
>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
>>> serviceA should throw an Exception in testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on
>>> iteration 5
>>> [ERROR]
>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
>>> in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be fired on iteration 1
>>> [INFO]
>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>
>>> You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further details on the
>>> nature of the leak and how the TCK can be improved? I don't see a filed
>>> issue regarding this problem.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Bruno Baptista
>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
>>>
>>> The staging repo is:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>
>>> 075
>>> My keys is still available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo
>>> /KEYS
>>> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
>>>
>>> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3
>>> binding +1s.
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com>.
Do you have a link?
Bruno Baptista
https://twitter.com/brunobat_
On 18/12/18 14:08, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Yes
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 14:10, Bruno Baptista <brunobat@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>
> Is this a know bug registered somewhere?
>
> Bruno Baptista
> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
> On 18/12/18 13:02, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> No, to the wrong assumption in terms if CDI exception in terms of
>> error during the deployment. The TCK felt in an unspecified area
>> but we applied the same workaround we have for CDI tck for both
>> potential exception in 2.0.9.
>> Other workarounds, as the circuit breaker bug in the TCK, are in
>> scope tests so we are good.
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:56, Bruno Baptista <brunobat@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>
>> Was it related to this fix?
>>
>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Bruno Baptista
>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>
>>
>> On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Romain,
>>>
>>> I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in order
>>> to pass the TCK:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
>>>
>>> Without that, we have these failures:
>>>
>>> [ERROR] Failures:
>>> [ERROR]
>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
>>> serviceA should throw an Exception in
>>> testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on iteration 5
>>> [ERROR]
>>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
>>> in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be fired
>>> on iteration 1
>>> [INFO]
>>> [ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>>
>>> You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further
>>> details on the nature of the leak and how the TCK can be
>>> improved? I don't see a filed issue regarding this problem.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Bruno Baptista
>>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
>>>>
>>>> The staging repo is:
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>075
>>>> My keys is still available in
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS
>>>> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS>
>>>> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
>>>>
>>>> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its
>>>> 3 binding +1s.
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Yes
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 14:10, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Is this a know bug registered somewhere?
> Bruno Baptista
> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
> On 18/12/18 13:02, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> No, to the wrong assumption in terms if CDI exception in terms of error
> during the deployment. The TCK felt in an unspecified area but we applied
> the same workaround we have for CDI tck for both potential exception in
> 2.0.9.
> Other workarounds, as the circuit breaker bug in the TCK, are in scope
> tests so we are good.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:56, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Was it related to this fix?
>>
>> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
>>
>> Cheers
>> Bruno Baptista
>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>
>>
>> On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>
>> Hi Romain,
>>
>> I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in order to pass the
>> TCK:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
>>
>> Without that, we have these failures:
>>
>> [ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]
>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
>> serviceA should throw an Exception in testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on
>> iteration 5
>> [ERROR]
>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
>> in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be fired on iteration 1
>> [INFO]
>> [ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>
>> You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further details on the
>> nature of the leak and how the TCK can be improved? I don't see a filed
>> issue regarding this problem.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Bruno Baptista
>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>
>>
>> On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
>>
>> The staging repo is:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>
>> 075
>> My keys is still available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo
>> /KEYS
>> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
>>
>> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com>.
Is this a know bug registered somewhere?
Bruno Baptista
https://twitter.com/brunobat_
On 18/12/18 13:02, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> No, to the wrong assumption in terms if CDI exception in terms of
> error during the deployment. The TCK felt in an unspecified area but
> we applied the same workaround we have for CDI tck for both potential
> exception in 2.0.9.
> Other workarounds, as the circuit breaker bug in the TCK, are in scope
> tests so we are good.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:56, Bruno Baptista <brunobat@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>
> Was it related to this fix?
>
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
>
> Cheers
>
> Bruno Baptista
> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
> On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>>
>> Hi Romain,
>>
>> I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in order to
>> pass the TCK:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
>>
>> Without that, we have these failures:
>>
>> [ERROR] Failures:
>> [ERROR]
>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
>> serviceA should throw an Exception in
>> testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on iteration 5
>> [ERROR]
>> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
>> in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be fired on
>> iteration 1
>> [INFO]
>> [ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>>
>> You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further details
>> on the nature of the leak and how the TCK can be improved? I
>> don't see a filed issue regarding this problem.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Bruno Baptista
>> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>>
>>
>> On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
>>>
>>> The staging repo is:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>075
>>> My keys is still available in
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS
>>> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS>
>>> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
>>>
>>> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3
>>> binding +1s.
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
No, to the wrong assumption in terms if CDI exception in terms of error
during the deployment. The TCK felt in an unspecified area but we applied
the same workaround we have for CDI tck for both potential exception in
2.0.9.
Other workarounds, as the circuit breaker bug in the TCK, are in scope
tests so we are good.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le mar. 18 déc. 2018 à 13:56, Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Was it related to this fix?
>
> https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
>
> Cheers
> Bruno Baptista
> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
> On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>
> Hi Romain,
>
> I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in order to pass the
> TCK:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
>
> Without that, we have these failures:
>
> [ERROR] Failures:
> [ERROR]
> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
> serviceA should throw an Exception in testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on
> iteration 5
> [ERROR]
> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
> in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be fired on iteration 1
> [INFO]
> [ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further details on the
> nature of the leak and how the TCK can be improved? I don't see a filed
> issue regarding this problem.
>
> Cheers
> Bruno Baptista
> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
> On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
>
> The staging repo is:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>
> 075
> My keys is still available in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo
> /KEYS
> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
>
> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com>.
Was it related to this fix?
https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-fault-tolerance/issues/323
Cheers
Bruno Baptista
https://twitter.com/brunobat_
On 18/12/18 12:53, Bruno Baptista wrote:
>
> Hi Romain,
>
> I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in order to pass
> the TCK:
>
> https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
>
> Without that, we have these failures:
>
> [ERROR] Failures:
> [ERROR]
> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
> serviceA should throw an Exception in
> testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold on iteration 5
> [ERROR]
> CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
> in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be fired on iteration 1
> [INFO]
> [ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
>
> You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further details on the
> nature of the leak and how the TCK can be improved? I don't see a
> filed issue regarding this problem.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bruno Baptista
> https://twitter.com/brunobat_
>
>
> On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
>>
>> The staging repo is:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>075
>> My keys is still available in
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS
>> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS>
>> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
>>
>> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
Posted by Bruno Baptista <br...@gmail.com>.
Hi Romain,
I have concerns about tweaking the test environment in order to pass the
TCK:
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard/blob/master/safeguard-impl/src/test/java/org/apache/safeguard/impl/tck/SafeguardTCKExtension.java#L80
Without that, we have these failures:
[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]
CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitInitialSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:292
serviceA should throw an Exception in testCircuitDefaultSuccessThreshold
on iteration 5
[ERROR]
CircuitBreakerTest>Arquillian.run:138->testCircuitLateSuccessDefaultSuccessThreshold:370
in serviceA no CircuitBreakerOpenException should be fired on iteration 1
[INFO]
[ERROR] Tests run: 212, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
You mention that the TCK leaks, can you provide further details on the
nature of the leak and how the TCK can be improved? I don't see a filed
issue regarding this problem.
Cheers
Bruno Baptista
https://twitter.com/brunobat_
On 18/12/18 09:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> as mentionned here is the vote fore Geronimo Safeguard 1.2.0
>
> The staging repo is:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeronimo-1073>075
> My keys is still available in
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS
> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS>
> Tag is on the main source repo and sources in the staging repo.
>
> This vote is open for 3 days as usual or untll it gets its 3 binding +1s.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>