Re: [cdi-dev] Challenge TCK test for indirect specialization rules

Dne 3.6.2014 14:42, Mark Struberg napsal(a): >> if the intention was not to ignore the beans in-between, >> then the rule for indirect specialization seems quite redundant to me. > > Exactly. Also please note that we usually define the things which shall work and do not define all things which are excluded. And if we do, then we define '... a DeploymentError has to be thrown' or similar. > > The complete indirect specialization section would be totally redundant and thus useless if leaving out all 'intermediate' @Specialized beans would not have been intended. > If it would have been intended as 'transitive' then this could have been written much easier. > > Please also note that the TCK for CDI-1.0 did NOT cover this in that way and also old Weld implementations did not behave that way. Not an argument. CDI TCK 1.0 did not cover a lot of things (compare ~830 tests in TCK 1.0 vs ~1530 tests in TCK 1.1) and many parts were not covered properly. The same for RI - there was a lot of bugs in weld 1.x. > To me this seems to be purely an introduction of Weld-2.0 but it's neither backed by the spec nor by the old TCK... I do think it is covered by the spec. If we get some reasonable arguments and acknowledgment from EG we're ready to fix/exclude the tests. > > So please remove the respective tests from the TCK and let's file this into non-portable. It's not ok to have a TCK test for things which are neither backed by the spec nor did work that way in various CDI-1.0 implementations (including Weld itself). > > LieGrue, > strub > > -------------------------------------------- > On Tue, 3/6/14, Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Challenge TCK test for indirect specialization rules > To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg(a)yahoo.de&gt;, cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > Date: Tuesday, 3 June, 2014, 12:05 > > The way I read it is that > the "indirect specialization" part is just a > different way of saying that specialization is > transitive. From that it > is apparent that > you cannot just leave out the bean in the middle. > > Jozef > > On > 06/03/2014 10:37 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> Hi! >> >> The question is about >> > org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.inheritance.specialization.simple.SimpleBeanSpecializationTest#testSpecializingBeanHasNameOfSpecializedBean >> and a few other tests in there. >> >> Imo they directly > contradict 4.3.1 of the spec: >> >> ------- >> Formally, a > bean X is said to specialize another bean Y if either: >> • X directly specializes Y, or >> • a bean Z exists, such that X directly > specializes Z and Z specializes Y. Then X will inherit the > qualifiers and bean name of Y: >> • the > qualifiers of X include all qualifiers of Y, together with > all qualifiers declared explicitly by X, and >> • if Y has a bean name, the bean name of > X is the same as the bean name of Y. >> > ------- >> >> in this > wording the 'intermediate class' Z in the > inheritance chain X -> Z -> Y intentionally gets > ignored imo. >> It explicitly doesn't > say that 'all @Specializes up in the chain' do > account for the name and qualifiers. >> >> To me it reads like the 'last' > (outermost) @Specializes and the 'first' > non-specializes beans do count. All @Specializes beans > in-between get ignored when it comes to @Named and > @Qualifier resolution. >> There was imo > also a test for it in the CDI-1.0 TCK which we did > successfully pass. But obviously this got rewritten to a > different behavior. >> >> >> Here is the > transcript of my discussion with martin and jozef so far: >> http://transcripts.jboss.org/channel/irc.freenode.org/%23jsr346/2014/%23j... >> >> txs and LieGrue, >> strub >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> cdi-dev mailing list >> > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > cdi-dev mailing list > cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev > _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev