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

fix: test meta model - MMField value(Item)Type is not implicit #1756

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 29, 2017

Conversation

pvojtechovsky
Copy link
Collaborator

Value type of MMField CtLiteral#value was Object with implicit = true, which caused problem in new template substitution and then invalid pretty printing of such type references... DJPP doesn't prints such TypeReferences, even if they are on place where they cannot be implicit.


mmField.forEachUnhandledMethod(ctMethod -> problems.add("Unhandled method signature: " + ctMethod.getDeclaringType().getSimpleName() + "#" + ctMethod.getSignature()));
});
});

unhandledRoles.forEach(it -> problems.add("Unused CtRole." + it.name()));

assertTrue(String.join("\n", problems), problems.isEmpty());
// assertTrue(String.join("\n", problems), problems.isEmpty());
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

explain why this assertion is commented out and when we'll be able to get it back?

@@ -36,7 +36,6 @@
*/
//enable this test after everything is covered.
@Test
@Ignore
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

remove line comment " //enable this test after everything is covered. "?

@monperrus monperrus merged commit 9e92cc8 into INRIA:master Nov 29, 2017
@monperrus
Copy link
Collaborator

thanks.

@pvojtechovsky pvojtechovsky deleted the fixMMValueTypeNotImplicit branch September 1, 2018 07:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants