Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added a couple of comments. Please disregard my earlier comment about needing to find a different follow-up reviewer. It looks like I'll be working this week with the other plans now cancelled due to COVID still present in the household, so I should be able to review updates after all.
| * the thread that contextualizes the Function, per the configuration of the ContextServiceDefinition. | ||
| * | ||
| * Assertions on results[0] and results[1] are both invalid because treating those two UNCHANGED context types as | ||
| * though they were CLEARED. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comment seems out of place given that this pull is attempting to correct the assertion on results[0] to make it valid.
| cleared = TRANSACTION, | ||
| unchanged = { APPLICATION, IntContext.NAME }, | ||
| cleared = {TRANSACTION, APPLICATION}, | ||
| unchanged = { IntContext.NAME }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Making this change would only correct the assertion on APPLICATION context and not the subsequent assertion on IntContext. Also, is it safe with respect to all of the other TCK tests that use "java:module/concurrent/ContextB" to alter this configuration? It seems like the safest change would be to either adjust the assertions to match the specified annotation values, or otherwise create an additional ContextServiceDefinition with values that the assertions expect.
2 participants
In the tests, ContextB's APPLICATION is tested to be cleared. This PR changes it from unchanged to cleared and enables all related challenged tests.