Status: New Owner: ---- CC: anquetil...@gmail.com Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Component-VerveineJ Milestone-4.6
New issue 746 by tu...@tudorgirba.com: VerveineJ should create parameters for methods with different signatures http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=746
In some cases, calls to external libraries get reified as methods with proper signatures, but without parameters.
I am trying to reproduce this using the following example (in ad_hoc/MultipleSignatures.java):
package ad_hoc;
import java.io.PrintWriter; import java.io.StringWriter;
public class MultipleSignatures { public void callToRegularPrintStackTrace(Throwable t) { t.printStackTrace() } public void callToPrintStackTraceWithParam(Throwable t) { t.printStackTrace(new PrintWriter(new StringWriter())) } }
I encountered a similar code in a case study. However, in this case, I cannot even get the parser to recognize both printStackTrace calls.
Updates: Labels: -Milestone-4.6 Milestone-4.7
Comment #1 on issue 746 by tudor.gi...@gmail.com: VerveineJ should create parameters for methods with different signatures http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=746
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Updates: Labels: -Milestone-4.7
Comment #2 on issue 746 by tu...@tudorgirba.com: VerveineJ should create parameters for methods with different signatures http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=746
I guess this will not be ready for 4.7, right?
Comment #3 on issue 746 by anquetil...@gmail.com: VerveineJ should create parameters for methods with different signatures http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=746
I ran VerveineJ on the code example you gave. First one needs to add ";" at the end of the 2 printStackTrace(...)
This done, 2 stub FAMIX.Methods are created, with the right signature ...
So I could not reproduce the problem with this example
Updates: Status: Invalid
Comment #4 on issue 746 by tu...@tudorgirba.com: VerveineJ should create parameters for methods with different signatures http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=746
Thanks a lot for looking into this.
Strange. I will check again in some other case studies and reopen it if I manage to spot the issue again.