-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 113
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Interim commit for #4480 #5319
Interim commit for #4480 #5319
Conversation
Looks good! Only why are unit tests hard removed? Shouldn't these be moved to faces/tck? The conflicting files section below highlight a painful backwards incompatibility with earlier versions tho. Perhaps best to wait until 4.1 is released before sorting out conflicts and then merging. |
@arjantijms @BalusC They were not conflicting when I submitted the PR. So I will resolve these and ask for a quick review again and then merge it to 5.0 if you are both OK with that? |
Indeed. These files were changed on target branch after you submitted the PR. It's just that this type of conflict shows that we cannot anymore simply merge 4.x into 5.x for future changes to 4.x.
Can you answer why the unit tests were completely removed? Shouldn't these be moved to faces/tck? |
@BalusC Which is why an umbrella issue is good to have that shows which PRs went where. I also always start with the most recent version first and then execute backports. |
@BalusC @arjantijms I realize this is not the end of splitting the API out. Next is to make sure Glassfish is fine with the split. Which means we need someone to add the new API jar to that project. @arjantijms Is that something you can do? |
How about these deleted tests? Shouldn't we move them to the Faces project? |
@BalusC I have restored the tests, but as they are very tied to the Mojarra implementation I left all but one test in the implementation project. Can we now go ahead and merge this in? Thanks! |
Yes I understood that they've some com.sun.faces deps but all these tests against API classes could simply be moved into the Faces project as part of TCK? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Approved nonetheless. We need to move forward.
@BalusC Next step now would be to move the module to the API project :) |
No description provided.