bval-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: BVAL-174 Return Parameter Validation Ignore void methods
Date Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:08:19 GMT
Hi David,

i worked together with Romain on the issue and already commited it.

Our first idea was to just remove the constraint, if there is no matching
validator for the validated return type (void in your case).
This worked fine and fixed your example as the constraint was ignored.
The problem however is, that the TCK forces us to not remove the constraint.
So our "solution" is now to validate the constraint when constructing
ReturnD and throw a exception, to indicate that there is no validator
and the constraint on the method doesn't make any sense.

WDYT?

Best regards,
Thomas



Am Do., 23. Mai 2019 um 07:13 Uhr schrieb David Blevins <
david.blevins@gmail.com>:

> > On May 22, 2019, at 12:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Have to admit i also see it as a good opportunity to enter the
> > codebase to maybe a good call for contribution ;)
>
> Agree.  Also provides some potential way to add committers and future
> potential binding votes to help get releases out the door.
>
> Thomas, I gave you write permission to my bval fork so you can push
> commits into PR #3.  You up for hacking on this together?
>
>  - https://github.com/dblevins/bval/tree/bval-174-voidreturns
>
> I'm not going to have time till the TomEE 8.0.0-M3 release is out, but if
> you add Romain's test case I can rejoin the fun next week perhaps.  If you
> are up for some pair-programming fun, just push commits right into the
> fork, no need to request a review.  Yay the power of git :)
>
>
> -David
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message