fixed Java method overload bug,

[laiweiwei]

e.g.

1. Java:

method(JsonArray array); 
method(JsonObject object);

2. JS:

java.method([ "a", "b", "c" ]);// JS Native Array can convert to Java Map, { 0 : "a", 1 : "b", 2 : "c" },
java.method({ name:"vv", age:18 })

[laiweiwei]

before:

.targetTypeMapping(Map.class, JsonObject.class, null, JsonObject::new)

after:

.targetTypeMapping(Map.class, JsonObject.class, v -> !Value.asValue(v).hasArrayElements(), JsonObject::new)

[laiweiwei]

whithout v -> !Value.asValue(v).hasArrayElements() the GraalJS will throws an error:

TypeError: execute on foreign object failed due to: Multiple applicable overloads found for method name 

[laiweiwei]

oracle/graaljs#3

[pmlopes]

Following the same logic, this null should be the reversed assertion then?

[pmlopes]

Should we also have the reserve assertion for lists then?

[laiweiwei]

Should we also have the reserve assertion for lists then?

No need to do that i think.

[laiweiwei]

.targetTypeMapping(Map.class, JsonObject.class, null, JsonObject::new)
.targetTypeMapping(List.class, JsonArray.class, null, JsonArray::new)

Both of these 2 conditions are acceptable to the JS Native Array, therefore, for GraalJS, multiple choices are confused, the solution is to add a clear filter condition:

.targetTypeMapping(Map.class, JsonObject.class, !Value.asValue(v).hasArrayElements(), JsonObject::new)
.targetTypeMapping(List.class, JsonArray.class, null, JsonArray::new)

For Map.class, it will match both [] and {}.
But for List.class, it does not match both [] and {}.
So i dont think we should also have the reserve assertion for List.class case.