Re: [bv-dev] Questions on TCK SequenceResolutionTest

On 30 Mar 2018, at 15:48, Matt Benson <mbenson(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: I think the issue is that Guillaume and I are viewing the group sequence as a simple, ordered set of instructions, whereas you, Gunnar, are viewing it more as a dependency graph. I will confess that I am having difficulty rising to your challenge of providing an example that would be indisputably cyclical without having sat down at a computer or with pen and paper to postulate one. In the meantime I wonder if there is anything in the spec to encourage this "dependency graph" interpretation of what a group sequence is. Having said that, it is probably true that a user who had set up such a situation as this had done so unintentionally. OTOH, the second attempt at validating the time consuming checks would be a noop in any case. Matt > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 8:36 AM Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: >> If not that, what else would you consider as a cycle in the context of group sequence definitions then? >> >> This sequence definition here says: "validate TimeConsumingChecks *before* TestEntity" and "validate TimeConsumingChecks *after* TestEntity", aborting after the first group found with violated constraints. There's no way to implement this. > > Not saying it makes sense but I could imagine validating TimeConsumingChecks then TestEntity then TimeConsumingChecks again. > > If we consider this a cyclic dependency, then the test is indeed valid. The name is not very descriptive but it's not wrong either. > > -- > Guillaume > _______________________________________________ > beanvalidation-dev mailing list > beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev