Re: [wildfly-dev] Opentracing extension in WFLY - EAR + Weld Probe

From: "Juraci Paixão Kröhling" <jpkroehling(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Matej Novotny" <manovotn(a)redhat.com&gt;, "WildFly Dev" <wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Cc: "Martin Kouba" <mkouba(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Nikoleta Ziakova" <nziakova(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 1:52:03 PM Subject: Re: Opentracing extension in WFLY - EAR + Weld Probe On 11/28/18 1:31 PM, Matej Novotny wrote: > during recent Weld release a noticed that one of Weld examples stopped > working on WFLY 14. WF14 shipped with a bug that prevented the subsystem from working properly: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-10961 I don't think it affects your examples, though. > Looking at opentracing extension, why are there no dependencies added to > the root of EAR[4]? > For the record I did try removing that 'if' statement and then executing > test[5] related to the PR in which it was added and it passed (and solved > my deployment problem as well). > If the above approach is fine, I can create JIRA and send a PR, I just > wanted to check with someone who has more knowledge about that opentracing > extension than I do. I trust your judgment on how it should look like. As long as the tests are passing, I'd say that it's OK to change. IIRC, we needed this conditional statement because we need each subdeployment to have its own tracer instance. If you are saying that we can get this scenario without that conditional, please do change it :) - Juca.