[cdi-dev] Challenge TCK test for indirect specialization rules

[Mark Struberg]

> if the intention was not to ignore the beans in-between, 
> then the rule for indirect specialization seems quite redundant to me.

Exactly. Also please note that we usually define the things which shall work and do not define all things which are excluded. And if we do, then we define '... a DeploymentError has to be thrown' or similar.

The complete indirect specialization section would be totally redundant and thus useless if leaving out all 'intermediate' @Specialized beans would not have been intended.
If it would have been intended as 'transitive' then this could have been written much easier.

Please also note that the TCK for CDI-1.0 did NOT cover this in that way and also old Weld implementations did not behave that way.
To me this seems to be purely an introduction of Weld-2.0 but it's neither backed by the spec nor by the old TCK...

So please remove the respective tests from the TCK and let's file this into non-portable. It's not ok to have a TCK test for things which are neither backed by the spec nor did work that way in various CDI-1.0 implementations (including Weld itself).

LieGrue,
strub

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 3/6/14, Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Challenge TCK test for indirect specialization rules
 To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg at yahoo.de>, cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
 Date: Tuesday, 3 June, 2014, 12:05
 
 The way I read it is that
 the "indirect specialization" part is just a 
 different way of saying that specialization is
 transitive. From that it 
 is apparent that
 you cannot just leave out the bean in the middle.
 
 Jozef
 
 On
 06/03/2014 10:37 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
 > Hi!
 >
 > The question is about
 >
 org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.inheritance.specialization.simple.SimpleBeanSpecializationTest#testSpecializingBeanHasNameOfSpecializedBean
 > and a few other tests in there.
 >
 > Imo they directly
 contradict 4.3.1 of the spec:
 >
 > -------
 > Formally, a
 bean X is said to specialize another bean Y if either:
 > • X directly specializes Y, or
 > • a bean Z exists, such that X directly
 specializes Z and Z specializes Y. Then X will inherit the
 qualifiers and bean name of Y:
 > • the
 qualifiers of X include all qualifiers of Y, together with
 all qualifiers declared explicitly by X, and
 > • if Y has a bean name, the bean name of
 X is the same as the bean name of Y.
 >
 -------
 >
 > in this
 wording the 'intermediate class' Z in the
 inheritance chain X -> Z -> Y intentionally gets
 ignored imo.
 > It explicitly doesn't
 say that 'all @Specializes up in the chain' do
 account for the name and qualifiers.
 >
 > To me it reads like the 'last'
 (outermost) @Specializes and the 'first'
 non-specializes beans do count. All @Specializes beans
 in-between get ignored when it comes to @Named and
 @Qualifier resolution.
 > There was imo
 also a test for it in the CDI-1.0 TCK which we did
 successfully pass. But obviously this got rewritten to a
 different behavior.
 >
 >
 > Here is the
 transcript of my discussion with martin and jozef so far:
 > http://transcripts.jboss.org/channel/irc.freenode.org/%23jsr346/2014/%23jsr346.2014-06-03.log.html
 >
 > txs and LieGrue,
 > strub
 >
 >
 _______________________________________________
 > cdi-dev mailing list
 >
 cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
 > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev