bval-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Vara <bashfl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Urgent problem with PathImpl
Date Tue, 28 Sep 2010 19:36:20 GMT
Hi Matt,

I remember having special trouble when working on the Path creation API to
make the tests pass. I also remember thinking the TCK was weird in the way
the nodes had to be created for the tests to pass.

This night I will try to get time to take a look and update this thread.

Regards,
Carlos

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi guys,
>  I believe I have found a serious issue.  In section 4.2, the structure of
> a set of Path.Nodes is described almost as a footnote to the section
> describing ConstraintViolation.  On rereading this section my interpretation
> is that bval-jsr303 currently implements association traversals precisely
> backward to the letter of the specification.  I am quite shocked that we can
> pass the TCK like this, but hopefully this means the TCK tests are simply
> string-based, since the alternative situation would be that the RI, which
> presumably passes the TCK, is flawed in a similar way to the Apache
> implementation.  I'd also be glad to be educated on why I am mistaken.  My
> issue is this:
>
> The spec says that a constraint on the fourth author (i.e. "authors[3]")
> would be represented by a not-in-iterable "authors" node followed by a
> nameless node with index 3.  PathImpl would represent this as a single
> "authors" node with index 3.
>
> Likewise, the spec says that a constraint on the first author's company
> ("authors[0].company") would be represented by a not-in-iterable "authors"
> node followed by a "company" node with index 0.  PathImpl represents this as
> an "authors" node with index 3, followed by a not-in-iterable "company"
> node.
>
> I wholeheartedly believe I have discovered a bona fide problem here and
> will begin working to fix it.  Unless I am looking at the wrong
> specification I can't imagine how I could be mistaken here, but please
> review and let me know if I am in fact mistaken.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt

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