Implemented FORGE-1879

[agoncal]

Missing a setter in the generated JSF Backing Bean

[forge-bot]

Build 536 is now running using a merge of 23af58e

[forge-bot]

Build 507 is now running using a merge of 23af58e

[forge-bot]

Build 536 outcome was SUCCESS using a merge of 23af58e
Summary: Tests passed: 533, ignored: 26 Build time: 0:43:30

[forge-bot]

Build 507 outcome was FAILURE using a merge of 23af58e
Summary: JVM crashed (new); execution timeout (new); tests passed: 243, ignored: 14; org.jboss.forge.addon:javaee-tests Build time: 1:00:18

Build problems:

Execution timeout
Process exited with code 1
JVM crashed

Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin:2.16:test (default-test) on project addons-tests: Execution default-test of goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin:2.16:test failed: The forked VM terminated without saying properly goodbye. VM crash or System.exit called ?
Command wascmd.exe /X /C "C:\store\jdk\jdk1.7.0_51\jre\bin\java -Xms256m -Xmx512m -XX:MaxPermSize=160m -jar C:\BuildAgent\work\413150b2588fb9e8\addons\tests\target\surefire\surefirebooter8114506439489672009.jar C:\BuildAgent\work\413150b2588fb9e8\addons\tests\target\surefire\surefire8238639738266861581tmp C:\BuildAgent\work\413150b2588fb9e8\addons\tests\target\surefire\surefire_74520166201121139365tmp"
The build Core 2.0::Windows - Pull Requests #507 {builId=16787} has been running for more than 60 minutes. Terminating...

[gastaldi]

Why the need for a setter? I think the idea is to encapsulate the creation of it inside the bean.

[agoncal]

This way I can test my backing bean with Arquillian : set an object (with the setter) and then call a few method to create, retrieve, delete this object. It's really for testing purpose (it could have been package visible but I don't like it).

[lincolnthree]

Not sure how I feel about adding a setter that isn't used by default. But
I'm not horribly opposed.

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Antonio Goncalves <notifications@github.com

wrote:

This way I can test my backing bean with Arquillian : set an object (with
the setter) and then call a few method to create, retrieve, delete this
object. It's really for testing purpose (it could have been package visible
but I don't like it).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#473 (comment).

Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."

[agoncal]

Well, it's handy for testing. In a perfect world Scaffolding would also generate test classes (that would be awsome)

[lincolnthree]

Yeah that would be nice.

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Antonio Goncalves <notifications@github.com

wrote:

Well, it's handy for testing. In a perfect world Scaffolding would also
generate test classes (that would be awsome)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#473 (comment).

Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."