[jbosstools-dev] CDI Tools. What's next?

[Xavier Coulon]

sorry for the double-post..
/Xavier



On Aug 23, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Xavier Coulon wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As I read idea #4 (diagram), I wonder if it would be possible to have some Arquillian tooling based on the CDI context to generate something like this:
> 
> 
> package org.arquillian.example;
> 
> import org.jboss.arquillian.container.test.api.Deployment;
> import org.jboss.arquillian.junit.Arquillian;
> import org.jboss.shrinkwrap.api.ShrinkWrap;
> import org.jboss.shrinkwrap.api.asset.EmptyAsset;
> import org.jboss.shrinkwrap.api.spec.JavaArchive;
> import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
> 
> @RunWith(Arquillian.class)
> public class BasketTest {
>     
> 	@Deployment
> 	public static JavaArchive createDeployment() {
> 		return ShrinkWrap.create(JavaArchive.class, "test.jar")
> 			.addClasses(Basket.class, OrderRepository.class, SingletonOrderRepository.class)
> 			.addAsManifestResource(EmptyAsset.INSTANCE, "beans.xml");
> 	}
> }
> 
> The idea would be that from an Arquillian Test wizard, you could specify which bean is going to be tested, and then generate the proper test class skeleton, including the 'createDeployment()' method. Also, some validation tooling could report problems if other required beans (that are injected in the one to be tested) are not added into the archive.
> I understand that it does not cover all use cases, especially when m2 dependencies should be included in the test archive, but it could be a great starting point.
> To be honest, I used a few times Arquillian on small side projects, and I often needed to spend some time on this method to create the proper archive, so having tooling here would be a nice feature IMO.
> 
> WDYT ?
> 
> Best regards,
> /Xavier
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 3:03 AM, Alexey Kazakov wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Here are my thought abut possible features/tasks that we can implement 
>> in the next versions of JBT.
>> 
>> 1. Performance issues. I believe CDI Tools don't work perfectly for 
>> really big projects (thousands of CDI beans).
>>     Right now we are investigating such issues (creating test projects, 
>> looking for bottlenecks and so on).
>>     When we will finish this work we will be able to tell what problems 
>> we have, how big they are and how long it can take to fix the problems.
>> 2. Some minor improvements such as: Continue to implement QuickFixes and 
>> OpenOns based on documents which are being edited and have not been 
>> saved yet.
>>     Not a big work since it's based on what we already have.
>> 3. Continue to support new features introduced by Delta Spike (which is 
>> still in progress and new features are coming).
>> 4. CDI project view and/or Injection Dependency Diagram (have no idea 
>> yet how such a diagram may look like but we can start to think about it 
>> and maybe such a digram may be useful for CDI developers).
>> 5. ?...
>> 
>> Suggestions/comments are welcome.
>> _______________________________________________
>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbosstools-dev/attachments/20120823/7d20cd3a/attachment.html