Closed mkarg closed 2 years ago
@jelemux Happy to have you in the boat coding the needed TCK tests for this. :-)
@mkarg Given that we re-opened issue #1088, perhaps we can finish this one this week as well?
Fixed all typos. Rephrased according Santiago's proposal. Appended Jeremias' TCK extension. Ready for review.
What's wrong with the current package jakarta.ws.rs.tck.common.matchers
?
What's wrong with the current package
jakarta.ws.rs.tck.common.matchers
?
I don't see the point in using a different package from ee.jakarta.tck...
. Let's simplify and be consistent.
What's wrong with the current package
jakarta.ws.rs.tck.common.matchers
?I don't see the point in using a different package from
ee.jakarta.tck...
. Let's simplify and be consistent.
I agree and will fix that, but actually I do not see that this is a reason for a -1.
What's wrong with the current package
jakarta.ws.rs.tck.common.matchers
?I don't see the point in using a different package from
ee.jakarta.tck...
. Let's simplify and be consistent.I agree and will fix that, but actually I do not see that this is a reason for a -1.
Without this -1, it could have been merged and we would have needed another PR (and more time). Let's fix and merge today if we can. This is the last PR for 3.1.
Done already. Apparently this was clearly just an oversight of Jeremias.
Nothing bad would have happend if we would have merged it as-is, as this is just a unit test for a helper class and not part of the TCK itself. We even could have lived with the "wrong" package forever without any harm due to that.
@mkarg Feel free to merge. It's been reviewed by several people already.
Just waited until two full work weeks were over. :-)
Fixes #1089