Nevermind then, guess it's in ...
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > I just checked in argscheck.js and refactored all applicable lower-case > plugin/*.js files to use it. > > It trims 4k off of cordova.ios.js and git tells me: > 245 insertions(+), 323 deletions(-) > > I also found that a couple of our tests were passing invalid arg types :P > > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> There's a good amount of code that currently check types on the public >> API. My goal here is to shrink that code because it seems repetitive. >> >> Checking the types passed to exec may be useful in some cases too, but we >> don't currently do that. Probably, if we wanted to add this in, we'd want >> something more sophisticated that actually checked JSON schemas instead of >> just checking for typeof 'object'. >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: >> >>> Ok, hold up, I'm missing something---I thought this was for the *bridge >>> protocol validation* not the actual API surface end developers invoke. >>> >>> Ideally the public API would define their own exceptional paths. (Har >>> har.) >>> Example: geolocation api has error callbacks whereas File API has >>> FileError >>> (or some such / on bad connection and just blasting this w/o checking). >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Patrick Mueller <pmue...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: >>> > >>> > > ya upon further consideration making these TypeException's feels right >>> > > since, ideally, this error would only be seen by a plugin author and >>> not >>> > > something a plugin consumer (ideally) >>> > > >>> > >>> > huh? I thought this was all about informing users when they pass >>> invalid >>> > arguments? >>> > >>> > I'm usually in favor of "fail fast" - and so throwing an exception when >>> you >>> > pass an invalid argument sounds right to me. The problem is that even >>> > though it's simple for us to fail fast by throwing an exception, we also >>> > need to make sure it's super obvious to the user that a failure has >>> > occurred. That's the hard part. Too many places where errors are >>> silently >>> > consumed by the runtime. >>> > >>> > I think a console.log() would be appropriate - along with a thrown >>> > exception - lots of folks have access to a "console" these days. Or >>> maybe >>> > we should come up with a new API - reportFailure() or something, which >>> we >>> > could have - by default - just log to the console. For platforms that >>> > don't have an easily accessible console, they can override this to do >>> > something visible for their platform. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Patrick Mueller >>> > http://muellerware.org >>> > >>> >> >> -- @purplecabbage risingj.com