De: "Tudor Girba"
<tudor.girba(a)gmail.com>
À: "Moose-related development" <moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Envoyé: Mardi 12 Avril 2011 13:56:58
Objet: [Moose-dev] Re: Status of Java annotation import with infusion/VerveineJ?
I might have found the problem.
I executed the jar from verveine.extractor.java instead of
verveine.core.
There are two tests that fail now:
Is that correct?
Cheers,
Doru
On 12 Apr 2011, at 13:28, Nicolas Anquetil wrote:
----- Mail original -----
De: "Tudor Girba"
<tudor.girba(a)gmail.com>
À: "Moose-related development" <moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Envoyé: Mardi 12 Avril 2011 12:04:54
Objet: [Moose-dev] Re: Status of Java annotation import with
infusion/VerveineJ?
Hi Nicolas,
I fixed AnnotationType and AnnotationTypeAttribute in FAMIX, but I
do
not know how to debug the hudson issue. What should I look at?
For the "zero test" problem I have no idea
For EnumValue, you can first check whether there is a getBelongsTo()
function in it.
If not, this is a problem of getting the SVN sources (or me pushing
them to the repository, but I can see them).
If you can open a console on the server, you could try to call ant
manually in both projects:
- verveine.core
ant jar
- verveine.extractor.java
ant junit
nicolas
Cheers,
Doru
On 12 Apr 2011, at 10:03, Nicolas Anquetil wrote:
> Ok. So, this means that we should have AnnotationType as a
> subclass
> of
> FAMIXType.
yep
>> For some reason, Java does considers annotationType attributes
>> as
>> methods:
>> Maybe this is because annotations are similar to interfaces and
>> interfaces don't have attribute?
>> To me they look more like attributes, syntactically and
>> semantically
> This is odd, indeed. But, I am not sure I understand the
> implication.
> Would it not be enough if we make AnnotationTypeAttribute a
> subclass
> of FAMIX.StructuralEntity?
Yes it would. For the current use of AnnotationTypeAttribute, it
actually does not really matters, where they are.
However, agreeing that AnnotationType will be a Type, it would
make
sense to consider that AnnotationTypeAttribute are attributes
(i.e.
FamixAttribute) of this new Type.
So this would advocate for AnnotationTypeAttribute being a special
case of FamixAttribute.
But, this is not a very strong argument, in fine, the only
difference between a FamixAttribute and a StrucuralEntity is
'parentType' which is just a renaming of 'belongsTo'. So both have
the same information.
nicolas
PS: Any idea why verveineJ tests on Hudson play the yoyo? I don't
remember commiting anything fundamental since build #16. So why is
the number of tests dropping to 0 now and then?
Also, 15 of the 17 faulty tests in build #22 (and before) are due
to
a lacking 'getBelongsTo()' method in EnumValue:
---
java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException:
NamedEntity.getBelongsTo()
Not implemented in this class, use the proper subclass
(fr.inria.verveine.core.gen.famix.EnumValue)
---
Something that was correct last week. So either Hudson does not
have
the corrected fr.inria.verveine.core.gen.famix code, or it is not
generating the famix.jar file or it is not using it it when it
runs
verveine.
Could you have a look at that?
tx
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
"Yesterday is a fact.
Tomorrow is a possibility.
Today is a challenge."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch