[bv-dev] ValueExtractionUnwrappingTest: quibble between spec and TCK

Gunnar Morling gunnar at hibernate.org
Sat Mar 31 05:51:31 EDT 2018

That's an interesting one; it was originally worded exactly like Matt
suggests, but then we changed into the current version:

I'm sympathetic to the current behaviour of that TCK test and to adjusting
the spec wording accordingly. Only you, Guillaume, didn't seem to like that
alternative as per our discussion on June 26th, in the Hibernate Validator
chat room. Perhaps you remember what made you dislike it back then?

2018-03-30 16:06 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet at gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Matt Benson <mbenson at apache.org> wrote:
>> Can we just make the change in the source of the spec so that it will
>> have been handled should we do a 2.1 version? Failing that, could this
>> particular test be somehow marked as optional for an implementation to
>> pass? I've made the changes to permit it in the Apache implementation in
>> any case.
> Changing the spec for 2.1 would be my preference.
> Let's wait for Gunnar insights. He's the master of the spec.
> --
> Guillaume
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20180331/246023bd/attachment.html 

More information about the beanvalidation-dev mailing list