MP OpenAPI - Adding CDI integration tests #111
Conversation
| */ | ||
| @RunWith(Arquillian.class) | ||
| @RunAsClient | ||
| public class CdiIntegrationTest { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@fabiobrz Just a small note: do you prefer writing CDIIntegrationTest or CdiIntegrationTest? What is better in your opinion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @zhantemirov if it is to me, I'd go for how is it now. But please point me to any resource that can help having a clearer idea in case you're referring to some specific naming convention.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@fabiobrz you were right keeping CdiIntegrationTest way of writing. Because we can encounter with "HTTP SID or HTTPS ID" situation. So let's keep it that way as it is. Thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you too, @zhantemirov. I'll resolve this conversation following your consideration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer CDI over Cdi, I looked at WF and Quarkus code and both CDI and Cdi are used, Quarkus uses mainly CDI.
CDIIntegrationTest looks weird, what about IntegrationWithCDITest ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @rsvoboda, thanks for looking at WF for a comparison. Fixing according to your suggestion that also addresses @zhantemirov concerns about naming conventions, IMHO.
|
@zhantemirov please add " ready for final review " label |
|
Created #113 for the future discussion. CdiIntegrationTest is an example of "a lot of Assert.assertXYZ checks in one test". This doesn't block merge of this PR. |
fabiobrz
force-pushed
the
integration-cdi
branch
from
e82936c to
7dce1b2
Compare
Yes, I get your point and definitely going to follow the discussion through the issue you created. Thanks. |
Integration of a peculiar CDI test case, see https://javaee.github.io/tutorial/jaxrs-advanced004.html
Please make sure your PR meets the following requirements: