[bv-dev] Questions on TCK SequenceResolutionTest

[Matt Benson]

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 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> 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 at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20180330/cbd73d3d/attachment.html