Jakarta Transactions 1.3

[tomjenkinson]

Signed-off-by: Tom Jenkinson tom.jenkinson@redhat.com

• A directory in the form wombat/x.y where x.y is the release major.minor version, and the directory contains the following.
• Specification PDF in the form of wombat_x.y.pdf
• Specification HTML in the form of wombat_x.y.html
• A specification page named _index.md following the template at:
  https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-committee/blob/master/spec_page_template.md
• For a Release Review, a summary that a Compatible Implementation
  is complete, passes the TCK, and that the TCK includes sufficient
  coverage of the specification. The TCK users guide MUST include
  the instructions to run the compatible implementations used to
  validate the release. Instructions MAY be by reference.
• The URL of the OSSRH staging repository for the api, javadoc:
  https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/staging/jakarta/transaction/jakarta.transaction-api/1.3.3/
• The URL of the staging directory on downloads.eclipse.org for the proposed EFTL TCK binary:
  http://download.eclipse.org/ee4j/jakartaee-tck/jakartaee8-eftl/promoted/eclipse-transactions-tck-1.3.0.zip
• The URL of the compatibility certification request issue:
  Compatibility certification request for EE4J implementation of Jakarta Transactions transactions#50

Include the following in PR#2:

• Specification JavaDoc in the wombat/x.y/apidocs directory.
  Jakarta Transactions 1.3 Javadocs #26

[tomjenkinson]

The URL of the OSSRH staging repository for the api, javadoc:
https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/staging/jakarta/transaction/jakarta.transaction-api/1.3.3/

[tomjenkinson]

Re: The URL of the staging directory on downloads.eclipse.org for the proposed EFTL TCK binary: I added the following in the _index.md
"Jakarta Transactions 1.3 TCK" is that correct?

[tomjenkinson]

Javadocs PR: #26

[tomjenkinson]

Please can a committer add the draft label?

[tomjenkinson]

Please be aware that the Jakarta Transactions project has a dependency on javax.enterprise:cdi-api

[tomjenkinson]

I have a PR to update the dependency on CDI to a jakarta one: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jta-api/pull/47/files

[tomjenkinson]

Updated to say "Final Release" in the specs

[dblevins]

Spec PDF looks good.

[dblevins]

I filled out the checkboxes so all PRs have the same number. If some of them are not applicable, check them and use "N/A" as the requested URL.

Note I unchecked the OSSRH staging repo box as there needs to be a URL like this one:

• https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/jakartaejb-1013/jakarta/ejb/jakarta.ejb-api/3.2.6/

[bshannon]

Note I unchecked the OSSRH staging repo box as there needs to be a URL like this one:

* https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/jakartaejb-1013/jakarta/ejb/jakarta.ejb-api/3.2.6/

No, it's not supposed to be in a "local" staging repository, it's supposed to be in the "global" staging repository, e.g., https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/staging/jakarta/ejb/jakarta.ejb-api/3.2.6/.

[tomjenkinson]

Updated to include eclipse copyright

[dblevins]

This spec is due for review and promotion to vote August 16th. Can you review this checklist and ensure all requirements are met:
https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-committee/blob/master/spec_review_checklist.md

[NottyCode]

Spec Review Checklist

1. Spec PR

• PR uses template
• Directory of form {spec}/x.y
• PDF of form {spec}-spec-x.y.pdf ("-spec" preferred but not required)
• HTML of form {spec}-spec-x.y.html ("-spec" preferred but not required)
• Index page {spec}/x.y/_index.md following template
• Index page {spec}/_index.md following template
• No other files (e.g., no jakarta_ee_logo_schooner_color_stacked_default.png)
• Staging repository link of the form https://oss.sonatype.org/conte/repositories/staging/jakarta/{spec}/jakarta-{spec}-api/x.y.z/
• EFTL TCK link of the form http://download.eclipse.org/.../+.zip
• Compatibility certification link of the form https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/{project}/#{issue}
• Second PR for just apidocs

2. _index.md

• Link to spec pdf
• Link to spec html
• Link to apidocs
• Link to final TCK download zip file of the form https://download.eclipse.org/jakartaee/{spec}/x.y/*{spec}-tck-x.y.z.zip
• Link to API jar file of the form https://search.maven.org/artifact/jakarta.{spec}/jakarta.{spec}-api/x.y.z/jar
• Name of and link to at least one Compatible Implementation

3. javadocs

• Footer contains Eclipse copyright and link to license
• ESFL license is included, usually as doc-files/speclicense.html
• no META-INF directory in PR
• javadocs-jar artifact matches apidocs (optional for this release)

4. Spec PDF

• Correct spec title
• Version number of the form x.y, not x.y.z
• Correct Eclipse copyright line
• No DRAFT or SNAPSHOT
• Correct Logo

5. Spec HTML

• Same as PDF

6. TCK zip file

• README file (optional for this release)
• EFTL license file, preferably named LICENSE.md
• User's Guide (or equivalent documentation)
• How to test the Compatible Implementation(s) listed in _index.md above with the TCK (may be in UG)

7. TCK User's Guide (or equivalent documentation)

• Software requirements listed
• Installation and configuration described
• How to run tests
• Where to file challenges

8. Compatibility certification request

• Request follows template
• SHA-256 fingerprint matches staged TCK zip file
• Request issue has certification label.

9. TCK results summary

• Page is hosted by Compatible Implementation project
• Includes all information from certification request
• Summary includes number of tests passed, failed, errors
• SHA-256 fingerprint matches staged TCK zip file on cert request

[tomjenkinson]

Thanks @NottyCode

[NottyCode]

The following issues need to be resolved:

1. There is no {spec}/_index.md file
2. The jakarta_ee_logo_schooner_color_stacked_default.png needs to be removed from the PR.
3. The TCK link in the PR description doesn't match the template form. I checked CDI and it follows the template pro-forma.
4. The _index.md doesn't link to the CI project.
5. The javadoc PR has a META-INF folder
6. The compatibility certification request doesn't contain the certification label
7. The TCK results summary doesn't include all information in the certification request
8. The TCK results summary does not include the SHA-256 fingerprint.

[tomjenkinson]

PS, I just quickly verified that we are using the right version of the TCK results in https://jenkins.eclipse.org/jta/job/TCK_run_pipeline/50/consoleFull you can see 76b80f10347804a38d5f12ea09a74356f8ea26298e97c8a525d7a9e3379f1fc5

[tomjenkinson]

Just updated the job to archive this... https://jenkins.eclipse.org/jta/job/TCK_run_pipeline/51/artifact/environment.txt

[tomjenkinson]

1. There is no {spec}/_index.md file

Added

2. The `jakarta_ee_logo_schooner_color_stacked_default.png` needs to be removed from the PR.

Removed

3. The TCK link in the PR description doesn't match the template form. I checked CDI and it follows the template pro-forma.

This I am not sure of, should I be adding in a link that does not exist yet like https://download.eclipse.org/jakartaee/transactions/1.3/eclipse-transactions-tck-1.3.0.zip

(I have updated the PR with this link as the pr description has the staging location so that should be OK I think)

4. The _index.md doesn't link to the CI project.

Added

5. The javadoc PR has a META-INF folder

Removed and updated PR

6. The compatibility certification request doesn't contain the `certification` label

Done

7. The TCK results summary doesn't include all information in the certification request

Done

8. The TCK results summary does not include the SHA-256 fingerprint.

Done

[tomjenkinson]

Assuming I am right I think we just need eclipse-ee4j/glassfish#22819 to be merged and then I can create a comment from https://github.com/jakartaee/specification-committee/blob/master/spec_review_checklist.md with all boxes ticked except "README file (optional for this release)"

[NottyCode]

I've gone through and verified and completed the checklist. This looks go to me.

[tomjenkinson]

@NottyCode +1 - thanks for updating the checklist - the item "Link to final TCK download zip file of the form https://download.eclipse.org/jakartaee/{spec}/x.y/*{spec}-tck-x.y.z.zip" should be checked too as per https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/pull/25/files#diff-c7ffc4a454964209443bba27a1a13629R11

From my point of view this is good to go.

[tomjenkinson]

Spec Review Checklist

1. Spec PR

• PR uses template
• Directory of form {spec}/x.y
• PDF of form {spec}-spec-x.y.pdf ("-spec" preferred but not required)
• HTML of form {spec}-spec-x.y.html ("-spec" preferred but not required)
• Index page {spec}/x.y/_index.md following template
• Index page {spec}/_index.md following template
• No other files (e.g., no jakarta_ee_logo_schooner_color_stacked_default.png)
• Staging repository link of the form https://oss.sonatype.org/conte/repositories/staging/jakarta/{spec}/jakarta-{spec}-api/x.y.z/
• EFTL TCK link of the form http://download.eclipse.org/.../+.zip
• Compatibility certification link of the form https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/{project}/#{issue}
• Second PR for just apidocs

2. _index.md

• Link to spec pdf
• Link to spec html
• Link to apidocs
• Link to final TCK download zip file of the form https://download.eclipse.org/jakartaee/{spec}/x.y/*{spec}-tck-x.y.z.zip
• Link to API jar file of the form https://search.maven.org/artifact/jakarta.{spec}/jakarta.{spec}-api/x.y.z/jar
• Name of and link to at least one Compatible Implementation

3. javadocs

• Footer contains Eclipse copyright and link to license
• ESFL license is included, usually as doc-files/speclicense.html
• no META-INF directory in PR
• javadocs-jar artifact matches apidocs (optional for this release)

4. Spec PDF

• Correct spec title
• Version number of the form x.y, not x.y.z
• Correct Eclipse copyright line
• No DRAFT or SNAPSHOT
• Correct Logo

5. Spec HTML

• Same as PDF

6. TCK zip file

• README file (optional for this release)
• EFTL license file, preferably named LICENSE.md
• User's Guide (or equivalent documentation)
• How to test the Compatible Implementation(s) listed in _index.md above with the TCK (may be in UG)

7. TCK User's Guide (or equivalent documentation)

• Software requirements listed
• Installation and configuration described
• How to run tests
• Where to file challenges

8. Compatibility certification request

• Request follows template
• SHA-256 fingerprint matches staged TCK zip file
• Request issue has certification label.

9. TCK results summary

• Page is hosted by Compatible Implementation project
• Includes all information from certification request
• Summary includes number of tests passed, failed, errors
• SHA-256 fingerprint matches staged TCK zip file on cert request

[tomjenkinson]

@dblevins just a ping to say that it is ready for review now in response to your comment here. Do I need to do some other notification too? Thanks!

[tomjenkinson]

@kwsutter I found out from https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakartaee-spec-project-leads/msg00270.html that verifying the links on staging is enough. Therefore "The specification project team should go through the merged spec website page to verify all the links are valid" can be marked as done as I looked at https://deploy-preview-110--jakartaee-specifications.netlify.com/specifications/

Also looking at https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/blame/master/transactions/1.3/_index.md it seems that "The EMO updates the specification page with the ballot results." has been done, whether we need @waynebeaton to formally confirm on here that it is final before you check the box I am not sure?

[smillidge]

I assume the email request to tck@... Is one for the whole platform so it can use the Jakarta Compatible logo? Rather than one for each api? Steve From: Tom Jenkinson <notifications@github.com> Sent: 06 September 2019 16:57 To: jakartaee/specifications <specifications@noreply.github.com> Cc: Steve Millidge <smillidge@c2b2.co.uk>; Mention <mention@noreply.github.com> Subject: Re: [jakartaee/specifications] Jakarta Transactions 1.3 (#25) @kwsutter<https://github.com/kwsutter> I noted a difference between the wording in your checkbox "The specification project team should approve the compatibility request and send an email to tck@eclipse.org<mailto:tck@eclipse.org> for approval of the compatible implementation for trademark usage." and the one from @bshannon<https://github.com/bshannon> to the jakartaee-spec-project-leads mailing list which says "The compatible implementation project/vendor MUST send an email tck@xxxxxxxxxxx for approval of the compatible implementation for trademark usage." which I think means this would instead be an action for the Glassfish team /cc @smillidge<https://github.com/smillidge> @kwsutter<https://github.com/kwsutter> I think "The specification project team should approve the compatibility request " is a separate checkbox and that could be marked as complete: jakartaee/transactions#50<jakartaee/transactions#50> — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#25?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAHFIQJS3KZ35ZJJJ7R4NYDQIJ4THA5CNFSM4IFENGVKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD6DI2AY#issuecomment-528911619>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHFIQOMXZ5DI6XB5JOC3UTQIJ4THANCNFSM4IFENGVA>.

[waynebeaton]

Also looking at https://github.com/jakartaee/specifications/blame/master/transactions/1.3/_index.md it seems that "The EMO updates the specification page with the ballot results." has been done, whether we need @waynebeaton to formally confirm on here that it is final before you check the box I am not sure?

My apologies. I missed checking the box on a couple of these.

[bshannon]

I assume the email request to tck@... Is one for the whole platform so it can use the Jakarta Compatible logo? Rather than one for each api?

The wording in the checklist is a bit misleading.

Section 4.b of the EFTL requires any implementation of any spec to send a message to
tck@eclipse.org before making any claim of compatibility. Doing so is also necessary
before requesting use of the trademark for those specs that allow it (currently only the
full platform and the web profile).

[bshannon]

@kwsutter I noted a difference between the wording in your checkbox "The specification project team should approve the compatibility request and send an email to tck@eclipse.org for approval of the compatible implementation for trademark usage." and the one from @bshannon to the jakartaee-spec-project-leads mailing list which says "The compatible implementation project/vendor MUST send an email tck@xxxxxxxxxxx for approval of the compatible implementation for trademark usage." which I think means this would instead be an action for the Glassfish team /cc @smillidge

See my previous response. I don't know where Kevin's text came from, but mine came from
the checklist, which we should probably update to be more clear.

[bshannon]

@tomjenkinson Please confirm that email was sent to tck@eclipse.org.

[tomjenkinson]

@bshannon as per your earlier message I am expecting that the checklist over here is what we are expecting to do and so I think that @smillidge as the lead of glassfish will have done/ is doing the step "The compatible implementation project/vendor MUST send an email tck@eclipse.org for approval of the compatible implementation for trademark usage." from there on behalf of several projects? "The specification project team should approve the compatibility request." has been done already over here

/cc @kwsutter are you able to update the checklist in this comment to replace "The specification project team should approve the compatibility request and send an email to tck@eclipse.org for approval of the compatible implementation for trademark usage." with the two separate ones "The specification project team should approve the compatibility request." and "The compatible implementation project/vendor MUST send an email tck@eclipse.org for approval of the compatible implementation for trademark usage." as per this. The first one can be checked, @smillidge please can you confirm if glassfish (the implementation of Jakarta Transactions) sent the email to tck@eclipse.org?

[bshannon]

@tomjenkinson I don't think @smillidge is planning to send a message to tck@eclipse.org for each spec for which GlassFish is a compatible implementation, but I'm happy for you and him to communicate and decide which of you should send the message. Just please make sure that it's done. Thanks.

[tomjenkinson]

@kwsutter re: "The specification project team should merge any final release branch as approriate for the branch management for the project." - the PR is not yet merged so I don't think we should check that box yet

[tomjenkinson]

@bshannon I am not a GF committer - does that mean I can't send the request (https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.glassfish/who)?

Assuming simply anyone is allowed to request trademark usage that, then @smillidge please can you let me know if you would like me to email tck@eclipse.org for Jakarta Transactions. I would probably write something like:

to:tck@eclipse.org
cc:Steve Millidge
subject:Requesting approval for Glassfish trademark usage of Jakarta Transactions
body:Subsequent to discussion on #25 and the acceptance of the Jakarta Transactions certification request which used Glassfish (jakartaee/transactions#50) I am writing to request approval for Glassfish to use the Jakarta Transactions trademark.

Is this OK for you?

[bshannon]

If you're not a GlassFish committer, it's probably best that @smillidge does it.

[bshannon]

@smillidge Please confirm that you've sent email to tck@eclipse.org for this spec.

[bshannon]

@smillidge Once again, please confirm that you've sent email to tck@eclipse.org for this spec.

[arjantijms]

@bshannon I can sent the email if needed. Since I had prepared emails for all the specs Payara was/is involved with, this one is even still in my draft folder.

[bshannon]

I'm not sure why @smillidge can't do it. Or maybe he's already done it and just hasn't told us. It seemed most appropriate for a Project Lead from the GlassFish project to do it.

[arjantijms]

Dunno, for me it's as trivial as pushing a button on an already composed mail in my drafts folder, but let's wait a little for Steve then. It's 23:00 currently in the UK ;)

[smillidge]

I haven't sent the email. Not sure why I have to and who or what is wanting to use the Jakarta Compatible trademark? The GlassFish project has already requested the Jakarta Compatible trademark for GlassFish based on it passing the platform specification.

[smillidge]

Also btw I never got a response from sending an email on behalf of the GlassFish project to tck@eclipse.org.

[bshannon]

@smillidge

I haven't sent the email. Not sure why I have to and who or what is wanting to use the Jakarta Compatible trademark? The GlassFish project has already requested the Jakarta Compatible trademark for GlassFish based on it passing the platform specification.

This has nothing to do with the trademark.

As described in the Eclipse Foundation TCK License, mail needs to be sent to claim compatibility
with a specification. The Jakarta Transactions specification approval lists GlassFish as a compatible
implementation. We would like to be able to claim that GlassFish is a compatible implementation
of the Jakarta Transactions specification, so the message needs to be sent.

Also btw I never got a response from sending an email on behalf of the GlassFish project to tck@eclipse.org.

No response is expected. You just need to send the message asserting that GlassFish is a
compatible implementation of the spec.

Please let us know when you've sent the message. If you prefer that someone else sends the
message on behalf of the GlassFish project, let us know.

Thanks.

[smillidge]

Someone else can do it then. I'm not going to work through all specs, find the URL and send the email.

[arjantijms]

@smillidge no worries, as said I had the mail still in drafts and just sent it.

[smillidge]

I assume a mail is required for all individual specs? I only sent mails for Full Profile and Web Profile on behalf of the GlassFish project.

[smillidge]

@arjantijms thanks for sending the email but it should have the URL of the test results in the mail

[bshannon]

The email should have a link to the Compatibility Certification Request issue.

I believe Jakarta Transactions is the only one outstanding for GlassFish. In the other cases
the spec project lead was also a Committer on GlassFish so they sent it themselves.

[arjantijms]

@smillidge I put a link to the PR in the mail (#25), which contains a link to the CR issue in its description along side all other info.

This is the same/similar mail I send for all other projects (Security, Faces, Servlet, Interceptors, Authentication, Authorization, Expression Language, ...)

[smillidge]

Why isn't any of this documented in the EFSP and the JESP specialisation https://jakarta.ee/about/jesp/ ?
The TCK license agreement has

make TCK test results showing full and complete satisfaction of all requirements of the TCK publicly available on the testing party’s website and send a link to such test results to Eclipse at tck@eclipse.org not a reference to a PR (sigh)

I think an overhaul of the documentation of this process is needed, IMHO it's currently incomprehensible to anybody who's not sat in the spec committee.

[bshannon]

We tried to clarify this in the TCK process document, but there continues to be confusion over
logo/trademark requirements vs. general TCK requirements. I've updated the above to try to
make it more clear.

[smillidge]

Probably best to take to the spec committee but these process documents aren't linked to the main process pages on the Jakarta.ee website.

[bshannon]

Probably best to take to the spec committee but these process documents aren't linked to the main process pages on the Jakarta.ee website.

We filed an issue long ago, but it hasn't been implemented yet.