Re: [webbeans-dev] TCK-Test --> ProducerFieldDefinitionTest#testNonStaticProducerFieldNotInherited
Hi Mark,
I suggest you take a look at the link I provided for you - you'll see
that this isn't a coverage report of the RI, but a coverage report of
the TCK to the spec. It also includes the added benefit of which
sentence in the spec a test is validating, along with highlighting to
pull out the specifics where the sentence makes many testable points.
Really, take a look - the answers to many of Gurkan's TCK questions so
far can be found by using it.
On 15 Mar 2009, at 09:33, Mark Struberg wrote:
Pete,
1st, thanks for your help. We usually don't run the coverage reports
of the RI because we do not like to look at your code too much. This
shouldn't get a 1:1 copy of the RI but should proof that the Spec
(+TCK) is enough to build a whole new JSR-299 implementation.
Agreed - I never suggested you look at the RI ;-)
txs and LieGrue,
strub
--- Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> schrieb am So, 15.3.2009:
> Von: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
> Betreff: Re: [webbeans-dev] TCK-Test -->
> ProducerFieldDefinitionTest#testNonStaticProducerFieldNotInherited
> An: "Gurkan Erdogdu" <gurkanerdogdu(a)yahoo.com>
> CC: webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> Datum: Sonntag, 15. März 2009, 0:28
> Yes, this is why it is essential to
> read the coverage report at the same time to understand what
> is being tested.
>
> On 14 Mar 2009, at 23:25, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
>
>>
>> It is very difficult to understand TCK tests that are
> written by others and it gets so much time. So questions are
> inevitable.
>>
>> In the mean time, Pete thanks for helping and
> commenting. After that, I will attach jira issues for
> all other my questions.
>>
>> Cheers;
>>
>> Gurkan
>>
>> From: Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>
>> To: Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu(a)yahoo.com>
>> Cc: webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:05:44 AM
>> Subject: Re: [webbeans-dev] TCK-Test -->
> ProducerFieldDefinitionTest#testNonStaticProducerFieldNotInherited
>>
>> No, this is testing that producer fields aren't
> inherited by default.
>>
>> I suggest you read the spec-assertion matched, and
> reference in the coverage report
http://snapshots.jboss.org/maven2/org/jboss/jsr299/tck/jsr299-tck-impl/1....
>>
>> This list really isn't the right place to discuss this
> - please either open JIRA issues or forum topics.
>>
>> On 14 Mar 2009, at 22:53, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
>>
>>> Hi ;
>>>
>>> In this test, InfertileChicken is selected for
> Chicken API type, because DeploymentType precedence is
> higher than Chicken. So *egg* field is called over
> InfertileChicken.(Field parent instance API Type = Chicken
> and Binding Type = @Current)
>>>
>>> But test is contradicted to this. Or any other
> semantic exist?
>>>
>>> @AnotherDeploymentType
>>> class InfertileChicken extends Chicken
>>> {
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> class Chicken
>>> {
>>>
>>> @Produces @Foo
>>> private Egg egg = new Egg(this);
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> Thanks;
>>>
>>> Gurkan
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> webbeans-dev mailing list
>>> webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
>>
>> --
>> Pete Muir
>> http://www.seamframework.org
>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Pete Muir
> http://www.seamframework.org
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
>
> _______________________________________________
> webbeans-dev mailing list
> webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
>
--
Pete Muir
http://www.seamframework.org
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete