No, it's a good point. I'm realizing we probably need some more tests covering a lot fo the patterns that are possible after Joel's change to loosen some of the interface restrictions.
On 2011/01/13 22:32:43, cromwellian wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:24 PM, <mailto:knor...@google.com> wrote:
> To be honest, I don't know what our JSO tests currently cover. My
intent
> was to put my case in as a regression and try to follow up with some > more robust testing strategies. Do you anticipate a problem that is
not
> covered with our current tests?
Well, the reason I suggested it is because you changed the writeTrampoline() function which appears to affect non-JSO Java implementations, but your test case only tests the change you made to the one that lives on JavaScriptObject$
-Ray \
> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1287801/show > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1287801/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
