[cdi-dev] DefinitionException vs DeploymentException

[Mark Struberg]

After further investigation I found out that Weld forbids an imo valid use case. And this is what gets tested in AddingPassivatingScopeTest.
Imo 
a.) the TCK test is wrong and
b.) Weld should even support this case.

See CDI-513


LieGrue,
strub



> Am 03.03.2015 um 15:46 schrieb Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com>:
> 
> If a given scenario is well defined in the specification such as this one:
> 
> "If a managed bean which declares a passivating scope is not passivation capable then the container automatically detects the problem and treats it as a deployment problem."
> 
> then the RI should be firing DeploymentException and the TCK should require DeploymentException. If this does not happen then it is a bug. Please file an issue for each such bug you find.
> 
> Jozef
> 
> On 03/03/2015 02:54 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> Hi!
>> 
>> I think we currently fail to have a clean notion about what should be a DefinitionException and what should be a DeploymentException.
>> 
>> It seems like most of the TCK in this regard is just modelling Weld behaviour and follows no whatever logic.
>> 
>> E.,g. we have 2 tests doing almost the same:
>> org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.extensions.lifecycle.bbd.broken.passivatingScope.AddingPassivatingScopeTest
>> Which according to the TCK should throw a DefinitionException
>> 
>> and
>> 
>> org.jboss.cdi.tck.tests.context.passivating.broken.NonPassivationManagedBeanHasPassivatingScopeTest
>> which according to the TCK should throw a DeploymentException
>> 
>> But BOTH actually do the same: they test if some managed bean implements Serializable. And both do this during bootstrap.
>> 
>> 
>> Am I blind and don’t see the difference, or is all this just madly broken?
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdi-dev mailing list
>> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>> 
>> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>