[bv-dev] Questions on TCK SequenceResolutionTest

[Matt Benson]

I will adjust my mental model to the "dependency graph" interpretation
and the Apache BVal code accordingly. Thanks all!

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Emmanuel Bernard
<emmanuel at hibernate.org> wrote:
> Gunnar is expressing the intent correctly as far as memory serves. I did
> want a *non ambiguous* partiall order behavior in sequences. The example
> makes it ambiguous.
>
> But groups and group sequences are probably in the top 3 of the most
> complicated piece of specification in the whole Java EE ecosystem. Not proud
> of it but it works as expected for all real life code of which thus test is
> not a representative :)
>
> Emmanuel
>
> On 30 Mar 2018, at 15:48, Matt Benson <mbenson at apache.org> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev