Oh sweet, yeah @Veto worked. Thanks!
Regards,
Richard.
On 18/11/2011 7:45 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
> Hmmm. Is it the scanning you need to prevent, or will the @Veto or @Requires annotations suffice?
>
> ~Lincoln
>
> PS. Haven't had a chance to sit down and work on your issues yet, really sorry if this is holding you up. I just haven't had a chance to breathe this week!
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Richard Kennard <richard@kennardconsulting.com <mailto:richard@kennardconsulting.com>> wrote:> forge-dev@lists.jboss.org <mailto:forge-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I've hit a problem related to an interaction of Arquillian, Weld and Metawidget. It could probably be fixed in any one of those, and I will endaveour to
> fix it in Metawidget in the future, but for now I need a workaround.
>
> Basically, I need to exclude 'org.jboss.forge.scaffold.faces.metawidget' from the Weld scanning during Arquillian unit testing. Where should I do that? I
> tried modifying /forge/scaffold-faces/src/main/resources/META-INF/beans.xml but I think that's the beans.xml that gets built into the app that Forge
> generates, *not* the beans.xml that controls the Arquillian unit testing?
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard.
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> http://ocpsoft.com
> http://scrumshark.com
> "Keep it Simple"
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev