Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Library[1,4,5,6]NegativeTest is overly restrictive #354

Closed
DartBot opened this issue Nov 5, 2011 · 6 comments
Closed

Library[1,4,5,6]NegativeTest is overly restrictive #354

DartBot opened this issue Nov 5, 2011 · 6 comments
Labels
area-test Cross-cutting test issues (use area- labels for specific failures; not used for package:test). closed-invalid Closed as we don't believe the reported issue is generally actionable

Comments

@DartBot
Copy link

DartBot commented Nov 5, 2011

This issue was originally filed by jimhug@google.com


These 4 tests check for conflicting names - but never actually reference those names. These tests should be allowed to pass unless the --compile_all flag is used to force full compilation and checking. These tests can all be trivially fixed by adding a reference in code (reachable from main) to the offending names.

This issue is equivalent to the one addressed in this commit (with accompanying code review discussion):
  http://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?spec=svn1233&r=1055

@DartBot
Copy link
Author

DartBot commented Nov 5, 2011

This comment was originally written by jimhug@google.com


Test TypeVariableBoundsTest/05 appears to share roughly the same issue - where it is expecting a compile-time error from a member that is never invoked.

@DartBot
Copy link
Author

DartBot commented Nov 8, 2011

This comment was originally written by jimhug@google.com


And two more tests that appear to be the same issue:

Field3NegativeTest
FieldNegativeTest

FieldOverrideTest has the slightly more complicated version where the types are instantiated, but the invalid field (named 'field') is not ever referenced which I believe should also be within the legal bounds of a compile without --compile_all.

@DartBot
Copy link
Author

DartBot commented Nov 8, 2011

This comment was originally written by drfibonacci@google.com


Added Area-Frog, Triaged labels.

@dgrove
Copy link
Contributor

dgrove commented Nov 11, 2011

Removed Area-Frog label.
Added Area-Test label.

@iposva-google
Copy link
Contributor

I reviewed these Library*NegativeTests with Gilad and they appear to be correct.


Removed Area-Test label.
Added Area-Frog label.

@DartBot
Copy link
Author

DartBot commented Jan 11, 2012

This comment was originally written by jimhug@google.com


I'm going to close this as resolved. The issue was a test issue and has been resolved as the tests are correct. The frog issue is captured clearly enough by language.status.


Removed Priority-High, Area-Frog labels.
Added Priority-Medium, Area-Test, Invalid labels.

@DartBot DartBot added Type-Defect area-test Cross-cutting test issues (use area- labels for specific failures; not used for package:test). closed-invalid Closed as we don't believe the reported issue is generally actionable labels Jan 11, 2012
leafpetersen added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 28, 2015
strong mode inference.  This CL adds instance fields to the set of variables
for which dependencies are computed, and re-resolves each instance field
initializer using type information inferred for the static variables upon
which it depends.

This CL also stops static variables with existing type information from having
their types overwritten.

This CL ports over a number of the DDC inference tests, more remain to be ported.

There is still at least one outstanding issue with instance variable inference,
see #354 (and the two tests marked fail added in this CL).

BUG=
R=brianwilkerson@google.com

Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org//1370793002 .
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area-test Cross-cutting test issues (use area- labels for specific failures; not used for package:test). closed-invalid Closed as we don't believe the reported issue is generally actionable
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants