Re: [bv-dev] Validator#validateValue() with incompatible Object specified

Hi, this comes from TCK ValidateValueTest#testValidIsNotHonoredValidateValue() . The test asserts that no constraint violations (and no exceptions) will be generated when specifying an Order as a proposed value for a property that includes a Set of Orders. The name of the test suggests to me, however, that the Validator is expected to transparently treat the Order as a single-element Set and simply show that validation of that set is not cascaded. Is this the case, or is the test actually showing that any incompatible value will be treated as raising no violations (and is therefore imperfectly named)? In either case, where does the specification dictate this behavior? Apache BVal has always raised an IllegalArgumentException if the specified value is not compatible, but its justification for having done so appears to be an artifact of an incorrect interpretation of the Javadoc of #validateValue(): "not a valid object property" was mistakenly applied to the "value" parameter instead of to the "propertyName" parameter as a careful reading reveals (IMO) is proper. But this exposes what seems to be an omission in the spec: what *is* the proper behavior when validation of an incompatible value is requested? And let's not forget the unclear nature of the test in question: is "order" a compatible value by virtue of being checked against a Set of its type (and, if so, why?), or is "order" an incompatible value that the Validator quietly abstains from checking at all? Thanks, Matt