ok Josh Thanks! El mié., 23 sept. 2020 a las 19:37, Josh Tynjala (<[email protected]>) escribió:
> Yeah, I can look into it next month. > > -- > Josh Tynjala > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:20 AM Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Josh, > > > > could you add the compiler warning? I think that would make a difference. > > Also I could take a look at your commit (and others) to learn how to add > > this kind of warnings. > > > > If we could see more of this cases (maybe there are only few) we can add > > them more easily between all. > > > > About Crux, I think Greg could know better than me where we can add the > > check. > > > > Thanks > > > > El mar., 22 sept. 2020 a las 19:49, Hugo Ferreira (< > [email protected] > > >) > > escribió: > > > > > OK. > > > > > > It was something that always annoys me on Flex and also happens in > Royale > > > but I understand but is following a standard definition. > > > > > > > > > Josh Tynjala <[email protected]> escreveu no dia terça, > > 22/09/2020 > > > à(s) 18:08: > > > > > > > Remember that ActionScript has function scope and not block scope > (same > > > as > > > > var in JS). So you are, in fact, declaring two variables named item > in > > > the > > > > same scope. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Josh Tynjala > > > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:54 AM Hugo Ferreira < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > > > > > for each (var item:Entity in items) > > > > > { > > > > > addEntity(item); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > for each (var item:Entity in items2) > > > > > { > > > > > addEntity(item); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > Warning on the second item:Entity (Duplicate variable but it's not > > > true). > > > > > > > > > > Josh Tynjala <[email protected]> escreveu no dia terça, > > > > 22/09/2020 > > > > > à(s) 17:34: > > > > > > > > > > > Can you share some example code that demonstrates the issue, > Hugo? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Josh Tynjala > > > > > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:28 AM Hugo Ferreira < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "1) The compiler must not be giving a warning for a missing > > return > > > > type > > > > > > on > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > method. I'm pretty sure that the Flex compiler had a warning." > > > > > > > + 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would add: > > > > > > > 3) The compiler must not be giving a warning for 2 variables > with > > > the > > > > > > same > > > > > > > name on different scopes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Josh Tynjala <[email protected]> escreveu no dia > terça, > > > > > > 22/09/2020 > > > > > > > à(s) 16:47: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like there are two things that could be improved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) The compiler must not be giving a warning for a missing > > return > > > > > type > > > > > > > on a > > > > > > > > method. I'm pretty sure that the Flex compiler had a warning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) At runtime, Crux is failing to handle the situation where > a > > > > method > > > > > > > > doesn't have a return type. Even if the compiler issues a > > > warning, > > > > > the > > > > > > > > method is still not actually required to have a return type. > > Crux > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > probably handle that situation more gracefully. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Josh Tynjala > > > > > > > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 1:36 AM Carlos Rovira < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you're right. I think this is in the "compiler side" of > > royale. > > > > I'm > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > expert on the compiler, but I guess there should be best > > > > practices > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > detect this kind of issue and report to the user with a > > > compiler > > > > > > error > > > > > > > > > message that is far better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe just adding a few will improve a lot the compiler > > quality > > > > for > > > > > > > > > newcomers (even people working full day and mastering > > Royale). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe Josh knows more about this and can give some > thoughts. > > If > > > > the > > > > > > > rest > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > us know how to do this, I think we all could add up to make > > the > > > > > > > compiler > > > > > > > > > better. But I think we need to go over some lessons to > learn > > so > > > > we > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > apply... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > El mar., 22 sept. 2020 a las 10:15, Christofer Dutz (< > > > > > > > > > [email protected]>) escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so I have been trying to port my flex application to > Royale > > > and > > > > > am > > > > > > > > > > currently working on learning Crux. > > > > > > > > > > Here I was having a problem, that was extremely difficult > > to > > > > > trace > > > > > > > > down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The effect was, that my Application was giving me the > > > following > > > > > > error > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > the browser: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > getDefinitionByName.js:59 Uncaught ReferenceError: Error > > > #1065: > > > > > > > > Variable > > > > > > > > > > is not defined. > > > > > > > > > > at > > > Object.org.apache.royale.reflection.getDefinitionByName > > > > > > > > > > (getDefinitionByName.js:59) > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Function.org.apache.royale.crux.factories.MetadataHostFactory.getMetadataHost > > > > > > > > > > (MetadataHostFactory.as:71) > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > org.apache.royale.crux.reflection.TypeDescriptor.getMetadataHost > > > > > > > > > > (TypeDescriptor.as:149) > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.royale.crux.reflection.TypeDescriptor.getMetadataHosts > > > > > > > > > > (TypeDescriptor.as:115) > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.royale.crux.reflection.TypeDescriptor.fromTypeDefinition > > > > > > > > > > (TypeDescriptor.as:170) > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Function.org.apache.royale.crux.reflection.TypeCache.getTypeDescriptor > > > > > > > > > > (TypeCache.as:60) > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > Function.org.apache.royale.crux.BeanFactory.constructBean > > > > > > > > > > (BeanFactory.as:616) > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > de.cware.cweb.frontend.config.Beans.org.apache.royale.crux.BeanProvider.initializeBeans > > > > > > > > > > (BeanProvider.as:70) > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > de.cware.cweb.frontend.config.Beans.org.apache.royale.crux.BeanProvider.initialize > > > > > > > > > > (BeanProvider.as:62) > > > > > > > > > > at org.apache.royale.crux.Crux.constructProviders > > > > > (Crux.as:288) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When setting a breakpoint in getDefinitionByName.js:59 I > > > could > > > > > see > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > “name” is simply set to the empty string. > > > > > > > > > > Also did the stacktrace not really give me any hint to > what > > > > might > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > causing the problem. So I did a debugging session with > > > Carlos. > > > > > > > > > > Effectively we commented out stuff till the application > > > > “worked” > > > > > > > again. > > > > > > > > > > Today I finally found out what was causing the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my code I had the following statement: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [EventHandler(event="LoginEvent.LOGIN")] > > > > > > > > > > public function userLogin() { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > //serviceHelper.executeServiceCall(remoteModuleService.listModulesForCurrentUser(), > > > > > > > > > > handleListModulesForCurrentUser); > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I really tried everything, till I noticed I didn’t > define a > > > > > return > > > > > > > > type, > > > > > > > > > > so as soon as I changed that to: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [EventHandler(event="LoginEvent.LOGIN")] > > > > > > > > > > public function userLogin():void { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > //serviceHelper.executeServiceCall(remoteModuleService.listModulesForCurrentUser(), > > > > > > > > > > handleListModulesForCurrentUser); > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My application worked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So would there be a way to make sure this sort of problem > > > > doesn’t > > > > > > > occur > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > to give some output that makes tracking down the issue > > > simpler? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Carlos Rovira > > > > > > > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
