Shale test status

[Simon Lessard]

Hi,

I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know, MyFaces
uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and contracts
involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't override
the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code compatibility.

Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for shale-test
framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be integrated
in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?


Thanks,

~ Simon

[Kito Mann]

Hey Simon,

I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
thread on this topic.

However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this might be
a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think Gary agrees,
though :-).

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
<simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know, MyFaces
> uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and contracts
> involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
> UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't override
> the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code compatibility.
>
> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for shale-test
> framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be integrated
> in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> ~ Simon
>

--
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
[phone] x3

* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *

[Matthias Wessendorf-4]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann@...> wrote:
> Hey Simon,
>
> I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
> thread on this topic.
>
> However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this might be
> a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think Gary agrees,
> though :-).

I am also +1 on the move ;-)

>
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
> <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know, MyFaces
>> uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and contracts
>> involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
>> UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't override
>> the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code compatibility.
>>
>> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for shale-test
>> framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be integrated
>> in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ~ Simon
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> http://twitter.com/kito99
> http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> [phone] x3
>
> * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *
>

--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

[Gary%20VanMatre]

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@...>

> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann@...> wrote:
> > Hey Simon,
> >
> > I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
> > thread on this topic.
> >
> > However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this might be
> > a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think Gary agrees,
> > though :-).
>
> I am also +1 on the move ;-)
>

Humm, well, I don't understand why shale test is excluded from the normal community protocol.  For goodness sakes, what if every project felt it necessary to pull commons digester into their own just because they use it.

I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale project.  However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to move to MyFaces, then so be it.

> >
> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
> > <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know, MyFaces
> >> uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and contracts
> >> involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
> >> UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't override
> >> the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code compatibility.
> >>
> >> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for shale-test
> >> framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be integrated
> >> in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> ~ Simon
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > http://twitter.com/kito99
> > http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
> > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> > [phone] x3
> >
> > * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 
> *
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

[Paul Spencer-3]

I tend to agree with Gary on this one. We need to grow the community.

My other objection to moving Shale is based around it's implementation
independents.  By maintaining Shale's independence, we minimize the risk
of including a MyFaces implementation dependency, like myfaces-common,
into Shale-test. Yes, I know may of Shale's committers are MyFaces
committers.

Going forward, I would like to see Shale's sub-projects have their own
release cycle, but this discussion should be held in a different thread.

Paul Spencer


Gary VanMatre wrote:

> -------------- Original message ---------------------- From:
> "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@...>
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann@...>
>> wrote:
>>> Hey Simon,
>>>
>>> I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the
>>> recent thread on this topic.
>>>
>>> However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this
>>> might be a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think
>>> Gary agrees, though :-).
>> I am also +1 on the move ;-)
>>
>
> Humm, well, I don't understand why shale test is excluded from the
> normal community protocol.  For goodness sakes, what if every project
> felt it necessary to pull commons digester into their own just
> because they use it.
>
> I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale
> project.  However, if the communities feel that the only way we can
> find volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit
> snobbish) is to move to MyFaces, then so be it.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
>>> <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may
>>>> know, MyFaces uses Shale test for its unit testing. However,
>>>> the new API and contracts involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that
>>>> current test fails with an UnsupportedOperationException since
>>>> some test implementations don't override the new method that
>>>> weren't marked abstract for binary code compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for
>>>> shale-test framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it
>>>> or will it be integrated in in part or completely in MyFaces
>>>> with time?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> ~ Simon
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
>>> http://twitter.com/kito99 http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE
>>> consulting, training, and mentoring http://www.JSFCentral.com -
>>> JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info [phone] x3
>>>
>>> * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
>>> http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17
>> *
>>
>>
>> -- Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions:
>> http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter:
>> http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>

[Simon Lessard]

Hi Craig,

The difference is the test framework, or at least a part of it, is linked
exclusively to JSF. More practically, what this mean is that we have a
cyclic reference between the API and the test. For example, the test
framework depends on FacesContext. However, since we like Shale test
framework, we also test the API with the framework, now this is a chicken or
egg issue.

This is even more problematic in case of JSF 2.0 since there's no released
API to depend on, so I cannot modify the framework even by depending on
SNAPSHOT pseudo release since I cannot build those with unit test sicne
those unit tests aren't 2.0 compliant. I guess it would be possible to
create a pseudo release skipping unit tests, but it seems against the
standard quality reputation of Apache to do so.

So, personally, I would have liked to put the JSF part of the framework in
MyFaces test project and release the test jar at the same time as the core
so that people can still use it as a dependency.


Regards,

~ Simon

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Gary VanMatre <gvanmatre@...>wrote:

>
>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@...>
> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann@...>
> wrote:
> > > Hey Simon,
> > >
> > > I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
> > > thread on this topic.
> > >
> > > However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this might be
> > > a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think Gary agrees,
> > > though :-).
> >
> > I am also +1 on the move ;-)
> >
>
> Humm, well, I don't understand why shale test is excluded from the normal
> community protocol.  For goodness sakes, what if every project felt it
> necessary to pull commons digester into their own just because they use it.
>
> I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale project.
>  However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find volunteers
> to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to move to
> MyFaces, then so be it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
> > > <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know,
> MyFaces
> > >> uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and
> contracts
> > >> involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
> > >> UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't
> override
> > >> the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code
> compatibility.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for
> shale-test
> > >> framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be
> integrated
> > >> in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >> ~ Simon
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > > http://twitter.com/kito99
> > > http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and
> mentoring
> > > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> > > [phone] x3
> > >
> > > * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
> http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17
> > *
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>

[Simon Lessard]

Oups, I meant Gary sorry... Dunno why I confused you with Craig...

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Simon Lessard
<simon.lessard.3@...>wrote:

> Hi Craig,
>
> The difference is the test framework, or at least a part of it, is linked
> exclusively to JSF. More practically, what this mean is that we have a
> cyclic reference between the API and the test. For example, the test
> framework depends on FacesContext. However, since we like Shale test
> framework, we also test the API with the framework, now this is a chicken or
> egg issue.
>
> This is even more problematic in case of JSF 2.0 since there's no released
> API to depend on, so I cannot modify the framework even by depending on
> SNAPSHOT pseudo release since I cannot build those with unit test sicne
> those unit tests aren't 2.0 compliant. I guess it would be possible to
> create a pseudo release skipping unit tests, but it seems against the
> standard quality reputation of Apache to do so.
>
> So, personally, I would have liked to put the JSF part of the framework in
> MyFaces test project and release the test jar at the same time as the core
> so that people can still use it as a dependency.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> ~ Simon
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Gary VanMatre <gvanmatre@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
>> From: "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew@...>
>> > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann@...>
>> wrote:
>> > > Hey Simon,
>> > >
>> > > I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
>> > > thread on this topic.
>> > >
>> > > However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this might be
>> > > a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think Gary agrees,
>> > > though :-).
>> >
>> > I am also +1 on the move ;-)
>> >
>>
>> Humm, well, I don't understand why shale test is excluded from the normal
>> community protocol.  For goodness sakes, what if every project felt it
>> necessary to pull commons digester into their own just because they use it.
>>
>> I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale
>> project.  However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find
>> volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to
>> move to MyFaces, then so be it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
>> > > <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
>> > >> Hi,
>> > >>
>> > >> I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know,
>> MyFaces
>> > >> uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and
>> contracts
>> > >> involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
>> > >> UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't
>> override
>> > >> the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code
>> compatibility.
>> > >>
>> > >> Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for
>> shale-test
>> > >> framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be
>> integrated
>> > >> in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >>
>> > >> ~ Simon
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
>> > > http://twitter.com/kito99
>> > > http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and
>> mentoring
>> > > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
>> > > [phone] x3
>> > >
>> > > * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
>> http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17
>> > *
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Matthias Wessendorf
>> >
>> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>>
>

[Greg Reddin-4]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Gary VanMatre <gvanmatre@...> wrote:
>
> I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale project.  However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to move to MyFaces, then so be it.

+1. I'm not saying I'm dead set against a MyFaces merger. If that's
the best thing for the Shale project, then let's go do it. But I would
much rather see efforts to grow the Shale community, rather than take
one node that has a lot of interest and move it somewhere else.  I
don't think we've really explored the options that involve keeping all
of Shale here.

As to Simon's argument that Shale Test is linked exclusively to JSF, I
think that applies to the whole framework. We can't work towards a JSF
2 version of the other components without having a JSF 2 codebase to
link to. So if Test is being held back by that dependency then so is
the rest of the project.

Greg

[Simon Lessard]

Hi Greb,

My problem isn't that Shale Test is linked to JSF, it's that MyFaces API is
linked to Shale-Test (while not to any other module). The part of Shale-test
we're using to test MyFaces isn't even linked to Shale other than for
historical reason (no harm intended here, it's merely factual). If the base
test classes don't get moved to MyFaces, then we're more or less condemning
MyFaces API to wait for RI to be released so that Shale-test can depend on
it to be updated to 2.0 API, or forcing MyFaces API to redevelop the base
test classes, or release versions without running unit tests on the API. If
you see any other way, please share it, because that would fix the issue
here.


Regards,

~ Simon

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Greg Reddin <gredbug@...> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Gary VanMatre <gvanmatre@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale
> project.  However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find
> volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to
> move to MyFaces, then so be it.
>
> +1. I'm not saying I'm dead set against a MyFaces merger. If that's
> the best thing for the Shale project, then let's go do it. But I would
> much rather see efforts to grow the Shale community, rather than take
> one node that has a lot of interest and move it somewhere else.  I
> don't think we've really explored the options that involve keeping all
> of Shale here.
>
> As to Simon's argument that Shale Test is linked exclusively to JSF, I
> think that applies to the whole framework. We can't work towards a JSF
> 2 version of the other components without having a JSF 2 codebase to
> link to. So if Test is being held back by that dependency then so is
> the rest of the project.
>
> Greg
>

[Greg Reddin-4]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Simon Lessard
<simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
>
> If the base
> test classes don't get moved to MyFaces, then we're more or less condemning
> MyFaces API to wait for RI to be released so that Shale-test can depend on
> it to be updated to 2.0 API, or forcing MyFaces API to redevelop the base
> test classes, or release versions without running unit tests on the API.

I'm trying to make sure I understand the issue so please bear with me.
If shale-test depends on 2.0 RI and 2.0 RI is not yet released, then
shale-test cannot be upgraded, no matter where it lives, correct? If
so, then a JSF 2.0 development branch could be created (either in
Shale or MyFaces) so work can be done on a 2.0 version of shale-test.
That development branch could depend on a snapshot of JSF 2.0 (whether
the snapshot is MyFaces or something else) while it is in development.
Once there is a release of the 2.0 API anywhere, then shale-test can
be released, then MyFaces, once passing all tests, can be released.
Have I identified the situation correctly?

If so, then I can see how it would be more convenient for the MyFaces
community for shale-test to live there. But it could further isolate
the Shale community by moving a vibrant part of Shale out. I would
rather see more cooperation occur. If we get enough folks to commit to
Shale (even just test) then Shale releases don't have to be such a
backlog. I don't think MyFaces are the only people relying on or
benefitting from shale-test so it might not be a good idea to tie
shale-test releases into MyFaces.

Greg

[Simon Lessard]

Hi Greg,

See inline.

~ Simon

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Greg Reddin <gredbug@...> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Simon Lessard
> <simon.lessard.3@...> wrote:
> >
> > If the base
> > test classes don't get moved to MyFaces, then we're more or less
> condemning
> > MyFaces API to wait for RI to be released so that Shale-test can depend
> on
> > it to be updated to 2.0 API, or forcing MyFaces API to redevelop the base
> > test classes, or release versions without running unit tests on the API.
>
> I'm trying to make sure I understand the issue so please bear with me.
> If shale-test depends on 2.0 RI and 2.0 RI is not yet released, then
> shale-test cannot be upgraded, no matter where it lives, correct?

Correct.


> If so, then a JSF 2.0 development branch could be created (either in
> Shale or MyFaces) so work can be done on a 2.0 version of shale-test.
> That development branch could depend on a snapshot of JSF 2.0 (whether
> the snapshot is MyFaces or something else) while it is in development.


Yes, but you're assuming that there is a -SNAPHOT version and that's the
root of the problem.

We cannot even create snapshot version as Continuum is going to whine about
test not passing since we depend on shale-test which itself isn't ready for
2.0 since it is waiting for API 2.0 to exist. So, to get a -SNAPSHOT
somewhere in the Maven repository we have to either do an alpha release of
the API disabling unit tests, or create our own base test classes and no
longer depend on Shale-Test (we would more or less recreate Shale-test in a
way).

If we cannot do either of those options, then we can't release or even JUnit
test the new code until JSF RI is released so that Shale-test depends on it,
so that in turn MyFaces API can build have an official release and finally
so that Shale-Test 2.0 can use MyFaces API 2.0 as a dependency rather than
RI.


>
> Once there is a release of the 2.0 API anywhere, then shale-test can
> be released, then MyFaces, once passing all tests, can be released.
> Have I identified the situation correctly?


Yup, exactly, but the anywhere here means RI since MyFaces depends on
Shale-test.


>
> If so, then I can see how it would be more convenient for the MyFaces
> community for shale-test to live there. But it could further isolate
> the Shale community by moving a vibrant part of Shale out. I would
> rather see more cooperation occur. If we get enough folks to commit to
> Shale (even just test) then Shale releases don't have to be such a
> backlog.


I don't know the whole Shale test framework, however would it be possible or
conceivable to not move it completely, simply moving the core classes that
are inherently linked to the API (FacesContext, Application and such) and
keep everything else under shale test umbrella? Or is the whole framework
composed of such core classes?


> I don't think MyFaces are the only people relying on or
> benefitting from shale-test so it might not be a good idea to tie
> shale-test releases into MyFaces.


Of course not, we would have to work out something on that matter so that
everyones using shale-test keep fully compatibility without even changing
their pom, this could be achieved (in case it was moved completely or in
part to MyFaces) by having shale-test depend on myfaces-api's test-jar for
example.


>
>
> Greg
>