Tucker,
I'm feeling a little dense. Can you redo one of these methods using
the correct syntax please?
<method name="testTabClassImplicit">
assertEquals('tab', tabs0.bar.subviews[0].classname);
</method>
Thanks, jrs
On Nov 7, 2006, at 11:42 AM, P T Withington wrote:
It is not. The new way is <instance>.constructor.classname.
I took classname out of instance just to avoid pollution, since you
could already ask the constructor and ECMA defines constructor as
being available for every instance.
On 2006-11-07, at 10:53 EST, Henry Minsky wrote:
This is listed in our list of test paths for lzunit
test/lzunit/testpaths.txt, but it fails
http://localhost:8080/legals/test/components/base/lzunit-
basetabs.lzx?lzr=swf7
Tests: 6 Failures: 3 Errors: 0
TestFailure: Object >>> testTabClassInherited failed: Equals:
expected
"ptab" got "Object"
TestFailure: Object >>> testTabClassImplicit failed: Equals:
expected "tab"
got "Object"
TestFailure: Object >>> testTabClassDirect failed: Equals:
expected "ptab"
got "Object"
Does this ring a bell for anyone?
The assertions are
<method name="testTabClassImplicit">
assertEquals('tab', tabs0.bar.subviews[0].classname);
</method>
<method name="testTabClassDirect">
assertEquals('ptab', tabs1.bar.subviews[0].classname);
</method>
<method name="testTabClassInherited">
assertEquals('ptab', tabs2.bar.subviews[0].classname);
</method>
Is this no longer a valid way to ask for the class name?
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
