-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 125
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
Entity Provider for java.nio.file.Path #1275
Open
mkarg
wants to merge
2
commits into
jakartaee:main
Choose a base branch
from
mkarg:nio-path
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
14 changes: 14 additions & 0 deletions
14
jaxrs-spec/src/main/asciidoc/chapters/appendix/_changes-since-4.0-release.adoc
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ | ||
//// | ||
******************************************************************* | ||
* Copyright (c) 2024 Eclipse Foundation | ||
* | ||
* This specification document is made available under the terms | ||
* of the Eclipse Foundation Specification License v1.0, which is | ||
* available at https://www.eclipse.org/legal/efsl.php. | ||
******************************************************************* | ||
//// | ||
|
||
[[changes-since-4.0-release]] | ||
=== Changes Since 4.0 Release | ||
|
||
* <<standard_entity_providers>>: Added entity provider for `java.nio.file.Path` |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Question: All of these tests (including what was added here) have this
@Tag
. Do they really all requirexml_binding
? If not then this may be a problem (even for Jakarta Rest 4.0) since xml_binding is no longer required by the Platform, so none of these tests will run assuming tests tagged this way will be excluded. This applies to all new tests in this PR.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.
+1, given Jakarta XML Binding is no longer required, implementations won't need to run these effectively allowing implementations to pass without even implementing the feature.
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.
I actually did a 1:1 copy from the "file" originals, just replacing "file" by "path". So I assume that why you mention was already wrong before. I hence kindly ask to separate that discussion from this PR, and address that issue in a separate PR.
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.
I've written Issue 1277 to document this. However, I don't see the point of adding additional tests that will not run. I understand that you may not have time to evaluate/address all of the tests in this class, but any new that you add should not have that dependency.
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.
So what is the correct solution?
@Tag("xml_binding")
from the added test?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.
I see your point Markus. As long as Issue 1277 is addressed prior to the next release. Can you confirm that the new TCK tests you've added have run successfully (since they currently would be skipped as part of a Jakarta Rest 4.0 TCK execution correct?)
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.
I'm not sure we should be adding new TCK tests that don't run. It kind of defeats the purpose of a test. While I can understand that's how the old tests work, there's not reason to make new tests work the same way. There could very easily be a new
jsonContent
instance variable created that these tests use. I see no reason for it to to be XML content. It could even be plain text.There would be new interceptors needed too, but again IMO that's not really a big deal.
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.
@jim-krueger I cannot confirm that they run, as there is not yet any implementation that fulfils the new API (or maybe I misunderstood your question).
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.
@jamezp For me it is a big deal, as it imposes unnecessary work for me now and it imposes a temporary deviation from the original code, which I want to prevent as good as possible. OTOH as you feel this is not a big deal, maybe you like to chime in and fix #1277 upfront, so I can rebase on the already fixed code base in a second step? We can leave open this PR for the time being. WDYT?
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.
How do we proceed? Apparently nobody chimed in to fix #1277, so could we please merge this feature and solve #1277 later?