[rfc][icedtea-web] a new reproducer LiveConnect "get" tests

[Adam Domurad]

** Sorry, re-sending to list. I seem to be hitting the off-list reply 
button a lot since switching mail clients. **


On 10/10/2012 01:40 PM, Jana Fabrikova wrote:
> Hello Adam,
>
> thank you for your comment. Please see the attached patch that
> implements the more readable format (unfortunately I used the same way
> in all my other reproducers, which fortunately have yet not been
> pushed into the repository).
>
> Jana
>
> On 10/10/2012 05:58 PM, Adam Domurad wrote:
>> On 10/03/2012 10:17 AM, Jana Fabrikova wrote:
>>> Thank you for the review, Pavel. I edited the source files according
>>> to your comments and commited the reproducer to the icedtea-web
>>> repository,
>>>
>>> Jana
>>>
>>> On 10/01/2012 02:12 PM, Pavel Tisnovsky wrote:
>>>> Hi Jana,
>>>>
>>>> this new reproducer seems almost ok. I have just two minor objections:
>>>>
>>>> 1) JSToJGetTest.java - (c) year should be 2012
>>>> 2) JSToJGetTest.java - could you please replace <Tab> by space(s)?
>>>>
>>>> With these changes I'm ok with push to IT-web HEAD.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>> Pavel
>>>>
>>>> ----- Jana Fabrikova <jfabriko at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> 2012-10-01 Jana Fabrikova <jfabriko at redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>       * /tests/reproducers/simple/JSToJGet:
>>>>>       adding a new reproducer for the first LiveConnect
>>>>>       test (Tests for getting members from Java side.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to ask for review of the attached patch,
>>>>> thank you,
>>>>> Jana
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hello Jana,
>>
>> I don't mean to dig up an accepted patch :), however I was noticing
>> while looking at your second batch of 'set' tests that your tests could
>> be clearer if instead of:
>>
>> genericJSToJavaGetTestMethod(0);
>>
>> ... you used something like:
>>
>> jsToJavaGetTest("int", "Test no. 1 - (int)");
>>
>> This would make the tests a lot more understandable at a glance. The
>> array of test scenarios could then be gotten rid of. Please post your
>> updated patch as a reply, thanks.
>>
>> (The name 'genericJSToJavaGetTestMethod' can be left as-is, however I
>> think the 'generic' and 'method' components are not required to
>> sufficiently describe the method).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> - Adam
>

Thanks for the quick reply!

Assuming it passes as before, it looks good. Just be sure to include a 
ChangeLog with your pushes (it doesn't need much details).

Cheers,
- Adam