> On Oct 16, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think specifying both is more verbose on one hand, but OTOH it allows one
> to visually inspect all the cases and think of each and every one in
> isolation to see if it is valid in a particular caller/member/target
> arrangement. The test infrastructure verifies that the test case covers all
> the MemberFactory(s) so one must only verify each individual allowed / denied
I understand the intention there. But when each test case enumerates 20
constants, it’s getting harder to review what’s going on and catch any issue.
>> Builder::allowAll and Builder::denyAll would be useful.
>> allowAccessMember of a specific modifier can imply both field and method.
> This is a good idea. Here's a modified test (no changes to patched files,
> just tests):
I like these grouping and it does help. One more nit: would be good to replace
the class name strings with constant variables. I don’t need a new webrev.