On 2013/08/22 11:14:09, rossberg wrote:
> Okay, added everything I think we needed. The tests have gotten a little
> verbose; let me know if you'd like them refactored before commit.
LGTM, except that, yes, it would be good if you could refactor the tests
to
avoid the repetition. Can't you just wrap the test body into a loop over
an
array from which you take pointers to different AccessCheck functions?
Okay, refactored to avoid some repetition. Named and Indexed checks have a
single TEST block each, and I've added a global static to mark the type to
block. I also factored out a helper for generating the access-checked
object in
the first place.
Landing now (test coverage is the same as before), happy to do more work on
the
tests if you have any follow-up comments.
(Please keep in mind that the tree is still not open for landing, though.)
> The nature of splice records is that there aren't any array operations
that
> create more than one record, but I've updated the test to do more than
one
> operation on the object.
OK. I thought there were some that can create multiple splice records
under
certain conditions, but I probably misremembered. :)
https://codereview.chromium.org/22962009/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
