On 2012/05/30 16:35:33, jlabanca wrote:
That would involve creating 2.3-modified jars, syncing to the 2.4
release, and
running API Checker, just to update a file that is no longer used.
I'll leave
it for the next guy to worry about.
I meant reverting (svn revert or git revert) some of the
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1646803/diff/14003/user/test/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/RequestFactoryTest.java
File
user/test/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/RequestFactoryTest.java
(right):
On 2012/05/31 00:18:43, skybrian wrote:
I got this feedback from someone who requested a rollback but decided
to work
around it instead. I wonder how widespread this sort of thing is?
Our use of the editor/driver stuff assumed the editors would be
rebuilt when driver.edit(T) was invoked.
On 2012/05/31 01:56:32, skybrian wrote:
LGTM (assuming tests still pass)
Because I must confess I didn't run them on the last few patch-sets, I
just ran ant clean testrf and then the RequestFactorySuite in both
prod and dev mode from within Eclipse, and I confirm everything's OK.
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1646803/diff/21002/user/test/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/RequestFactoryTest.java
File
user/test/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/RequestFactoryTest.java
(right):
Hey Thomas,
Thanks for pointing this out. This is pretty whacked, and is probably a
symptom of a problem that we've had for a long time - how do we handle
dependencies on GWT? Should we bundle them, re-package them, or require the
user to add them to the classpath?
Other replies inline:
On Tue,
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1646803/diff/21002/user/test/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/RequestFactoryTest.java
File
user/test/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/RequestFactoryTest.java
(right):
Reviewers: ,
Description:
Added text-overflow, text-indent, and text-transform
Also added a convenience function to GwtSafeStylesUtilsTest:
assertEquals(String, SafeStyles)
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1723803/
Affected files:
On 2012/05/31 15:02:27, tbroyer wrote:
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1646803/diff/21002/user/test/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/RequestFactoryTest.java
File
user/test/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/RequestFactoryTest.java
(right):
Double-ping. If we can't land this one soon, we'll defer it to 2.5.1.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1578808/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Ran the latest patch set through google's battery of tests; everything
passed.
On Thu May 31 09:22:21 GMT-400 2012, t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012/05/31 01:56:32, skybrian wrote:
LGTM (assuming tests still pass)
Because I must confess I didn't run them on the last few patch-sets, I
just
On 2012/05/22 23:28:12, rdayal wrote:
Ping.
Ping Ping.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1614806/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On 2012/05/14 19:34:17, rdayal wrote:
On 2012/04/10 21:00:17, acleung wrote:
LGTM
Alan, did this one land internally?
This was submitted.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1647803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Double-ping. If we can't land this one soon, we'll defer it to 2.5.1.
Yeah, let's just defer. I haven't had time to get back in to it and
answer Scott's question. This is just an optimization anyway, and I
don't know what, or if any, affect it had on perceived performance.
Sounds good.
On Thu May 31 11:51:45 GMT-400 2012, stephen.haber...@gmail.com wrote:
Double-ping. If we can't land this one soon, we'll defer it to 2.5.1.
Yeah, let's just defer. I haven't had time to get back in to it and
answer Scott's question. This is just an optimization anyway, and I
Committed as r11004.
On Thu May 31 11:34:33 GMT-400 2012, Rajeev Dayal rda...@google.com
wrote:
Ran the latest patch set through google's battery of tests; everything
passed.
On Thu May 31 09:22:21 GMT-400 2012, t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012/05/31 01:56:32, skybrian wrote:
LGTM
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Rajeev Dayal wrote:
Hey Thomas,
Thanks for pointing this out. This is pretty whacked, and is probably a
symptom of a problem that we've had for a long time - how do we handle
dependencies on GWT? Should we bundle them, re-package them, or require the
user to
Ping Ping.
Thanks--added a new patchset with a performance note in the javadocs.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1614806/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Rajeev Dayal rda...@google.com wrote:
Seeing test failures when I patch this in. See attachment.
I remember seeing that before (and unrelated to the GWT.create changes) --
are you sure you are up to date?
If you are, then we need to track down the bad JSNI
I remember seeing that before (and unrelated to the GWT.create
changes) --
are you sure you are up to date?
Thanks for chiming in John--I was just running the test that failed
(ScriptInjectorTest) here locally in Eclipse, both web and prod mode,
and it works fine. Wasn't really seeing how
Submitted as r11005
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1719803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Submitted as r11005
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1695804/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Hey all,
I don't think I'll have a chance to look at this by the afternoon. John, if
you could check into this, that would be great.
I believe I was up-to-date; did a sync right before I ran the tests. I
didn't check to see if some other change had landed that would have caused
this problem.
23 matches
Mail list logo
