[webbeans-dev] TCK-Test --> ProducerFieldDefinitionTest#testNonStaticProducerFieldNotInherited

[Pete Muir]

Hi Mark,

I suggest you take a look at the link I provided for you - you'll see  
that this isn't a coverage report of the RI, but a coverage report of  
the TCK to the spec. It also includes the added benefit of which  
sentence in the spec a test is validating, along with highlighting to  
pull out the specifics where the sentence makes many testable points.

Really, take a look - the answers to many of Gurkan's TCK questions so  
far can be found by using it.

On 15 Mar 2009, at 09:33, Mark Struberg wrote:

>
> Pete,
>
> 1st, thanks for your help. We usually don't run the coverage reports  
> of the RI because we do not like to look at your code too much. This  
> shouldn't get a 1:1 copy of the RI but should proof that the Spec  
> (+TCK) is enough to build a whole new JSR-299 implementation.

Agreed - I never suggested you look at the RI ;-)

>
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> schrieb am So, 15.3.2009:
>
>> Von: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
>> Betreff: Re: [webbeans-dev] TCK-Test -->  
>> ProducerFieldDefinitionTest#testNonStaticProducerFieldNotInherited
>> An: "Gurkan Erdogdu" <gurkanerdogdu at yahoo.com>
>> CC: webbeans-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> Datum: Sonntag, 15. März 2009, 0:28
>> Yes, this is why it is essential to
>> read the coverage report at the same time to understand what
>> is being tested.
>>
>> On 14 Mar 2009, at 23:25, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is very difficult to understand TCK tests that are
>> written by others and it gets so much time. So questions are
>> inevitable.
>>>
>>> In the mean time, Pete thanks for helping and
>> commenting. After that, I will attach  jira issues for
>> all other my questions.
>>>
>>> Cheers;
>>>
>>> Gurkan
>>>
>>> From: Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com>
>>> To: Gurkan Erdogdu <gurkanerdogdu at yahoo.com>
>>> Cc: webbeans-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:05:44 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [webbeans-dev] TCK-Test -->
>> ProducerFieldDefinitionTest#testNonStaticProducerFieldNotInherited
>>>
>>> No, this is testing that producer fields aren't
>> inherited by default.
>>>
>>> I suggest you read the spec-assertion matched, and
>> reference in the coverage report http://snapshots.jboss.org/maven2/org/jboss/jsr299/tck/jsr299-tck-impl/1.0.0-SNAPSHOT/jsr299-tck-impl-1.0.0-20090313.233243-59-coverage.html
>>>
>>> This list really isn't the right place to discuss this
>> - please either open JIRA issues or forum topics.
>>>
>>> On 14 Mar 2009, at 22:53, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi ;
>>>>
>>>> In this test, InfertileChicken is selected for
>> Chicken API type, because DeploymentType precedence is
>> higher than Chicken. So *egg* field is called over
>> InfertileChicken.(Field parent instance API Type = Chicken
>> and Binding Type = @Current)
>>>>
>>>> But test is contradicted to this. Or any other
>> semantic exist?
>>>>
>>>> @AnotherDeploymentType
>>>> class InfertileChicken extends Chicken
>>>> {
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> class Chicken
>>>> {
>>>>
>>>>     @Produces @Foo
>>>>     private Egg egg = new Egg(this);
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Thanks;
>>>>
>>>> Gurkan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> webbeans-dev mailing list
>>>> webbeans-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pete Muir
>>> http://www.seamframework.org
>>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Pete Muir
>> http://www.seamframework.org
>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> webbeans-dev mailing list
>> webbeans-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
>>
>
>
>

--
Pete Muir
http://www.seamframework.org
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete