Please be careful with that kind of quick hack. What will happen to the
person who writes the next test?
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:44 PM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/931802/diff/1/6
File user/test/com/google/gwt/requestfactory/server/SimpleFoo.java
(right):
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/931802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Ray C, can you take this review?
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:20 PM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Adding more unit tests to RequestFactoryTest. Refactoring SimpleFoo to
use a HashMap to store records instead of a singleton.
Please review this at
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/931802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
You guys make it way too difficult to be lazy. I took RayC's advice and
added loop detection.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/931802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Integrated Ray's change from
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/932802/show. There were two other
places where null was converted to a string: ClientRequestHelper
(client) wrapped everything in a string and
JsonRequestProcessor.getParameterMap (server) requested a string even if
the value was
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/931802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
committed as r8909
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/931802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/931802/diff/1/6
File user/test/com/google/gwt/requestfactory/server/SimpleFoo.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/931802/diff/1/6#newcode438
user/test/com/google/gwt/requestfactory/server/SimpleFoo.java:438: if
(fooField != null) {
I can just
