12 Apr
2011
12 Apr
'11
1:28 p.m.
----- 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:
--
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
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