[Certification]: Eclipse JNoSQL 1.1.4

[otaviojava]

Organization

Eclipse Foundation

Implementation

Eclipse JNoSQL 1.1.4: https://github.com/eclipse-jnosql/jnosql/releases/tag/1.1.4

Specification

Jakarta Data 1.0.1 https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/jakarta.data/jakarta.data-tck/1.0.1

Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK)

Jakarta Data 1.0.1 TCK: https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/jakarta.data/jakarta.data-tck/1.0.1

Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK) Validation

❯ shasum -a256 data-tck-1.0.1.zip
92babb604b4e346f8d19929979c1d6aaf013fdf990b5e97bdd95502ad7db5b4c  data-tck-1.0.1.zip

Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK) Results

https://github.com/eclipse-jnosql/jnosql/wiki/Jakarta-Data-1.0.1-TCK

Additional Specification Requirements

None

Java Runtime(s)

openjdk version "21.0.5" 2024-10-15 LTS
OpenJDK Runtime Environment Temurin-21.0.5+11 (build 21.0.5+11-LTS)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Temurin-21.0.5+11 (build 21.0.5+11-LTS, mixed mode, sharing)

openjdk version "17.0.4.1" 2022-08-12
OpenJDK Runtime Environment Temurin-17.0.4.1+1 (build 17.0.4.1+1)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Temurin-17.0.4.1+1 (build 17.0.4.1+1, mixed mode

Environments

None

Eclipse Foundation Technology Compatibility Kit License (EFTL)

• By checking this box I acknowledge that the organization I represent accepts the terms of the EFTL

TCK Requirements and Compatibility

• By checking this box I attest that all TCK requirements have been met, including any compatibility rules.

[njr-11]

Specification

Jakarta Data 1.1

Do you mean 1.0.1 instead? 1.1 does not exist yet.

[otaviojava]

Specification

Jakarta Data 1.1

Do you mean 1.0.1 instead? 1.1 does not exist yet.

Yes, thanks.
I fixed.

[otaviojava]

Please vote here.
Until next week, February 12, 2025.

[gavinking]

@otaviojava how does voting work? We didn't do any explicit votes on the previous certification requests.

[otaviojava]

@otaviojava how does voting work? We didn't do any explicit votes on the previous certification requests.

We need a commiter to review the results and approve, like we did here: #714

At Today's meeting, @KyleAure agreed to review it.

[KyleAure]

@gavinking @otaviojava This came up on the Jakarta Data call.
Technically certification requests are approved by vote see: https://jakarta.ee/committees/specification/tckprocess/
(see certification resolution)
Which can be approved one of three ways.

• Approval by lazy consensus after a period of two weeks (14 days)
• Approval by a majority vote of the specification project as soon as it happens.
  • The sum of the +1/-1 votes must be greater than 50% of the specification project committers.
• Approval by any top-level specification project lead at any time

Hibernate and Open Liberty were approved via lazy consensus. I had not reviewed this issue prior to the call so I didn't realize it had already been more than two weeks so I thought we had to vote on it.

Seeing as how this was opened 3 weeks ago and no one has any dissenting comments we can go ahead and approved this certification. Though after reviewing the output it does look like there were no signature tests ran and the SHA sum is missing.

[KyleAure]

@otaviojava can you modify your original request with the following information:

• Link to JNoSQL 1.1.4 (maven central or github release)
• Link to the version of the TCK you ran against (maven central or Eclipse downloads)
• The SHA sum of the TCK you ran against (zip)

^^ I'll need these to update the platform page.

[otaviojava]

@KyleAure could you check those?

I did pretty similar to the Hibernate structure

[KyleAure]

Thanks. Leave this issue open and I'll link it to the PR on the platform side so it gets closed once the PR is merged.

[gavinking]

Hibernate and Open Liberty were approved via lazy consensus. I had not reviewed this issue prior to the call so I didn't realize it had already been more than two weeks so I thought we had to vote on it.

Seeing as how this was opened 3 weeks ago and no one has any dissenting comments we can go ahead and approved this certification. Though after reviewing the output it does look like there were no signature tests ran and the SHA sum is missing.

OK OK, just wanted to make sure we're not asking @otaviojava to jump through hoops that we didn't have to jump through, 'cos that wouldn't be fair.