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, 28 Jun 2019 07:35:13 GMT
ping :D

Am Fr., 7. Juni 2019 um 14:08 Uhr schrieb Thomas Andraschko <
andraschko.thomas@gmail.com>:

> 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