Yeah, if @const becomes const in AS, that probably isn't right.
I just found this: https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/issues/139
I don't have time to investigate further right now, so if you have time that
would be great. We might need to update which version of Google Closure we are
using.
Regarding the options you listed, I think goal is to generate the right AS
classes with a getter and no setter. If Google still doesn't handle @readonly,
we could add a field to the ExternCConfiguration where you specify which APIs
should be read-only and correct the output AS.
HTH,
-Alex
On 6/29/18, 11:46 PM, "Frost, Andrew" <andrew.fr...@harman.com> wrote:
Hi
Well @const is at least supported by the Google classes; with a slight
change in FieldReference.java to actually set the internal flag ("this.isConst
= comment.hasConstAnnotation();") then it changes the ActionScript declaration
so that it's now:
public const timezoneOffset:Number = 13;
And when you try to assign to it, you get
TestRoyale.mxml(38): col: 5 Error: Illegal assignment to a variable
specified as constant.
date.timezoneOffset = 55;
^
So it kind of works in flagging up a bad bit of code, but from an
ActionScript perspective it's not right, we should be getting an
"AssignToReadOnlyPropertyProblem" rather than an "AssignToConstProblem".
The options as I see it:
1) live with this as a slightly incorrect warning, as it's very unlikely to
happen (shouldn't occur in the AS3 code to start with assuming that compiles
already in Flex) and it's the simplest/most elegant change
2) have specific code in the SemanticUtils class which knows about this
particular Date property and is looking out for it by name ... not very
efficient and something of a hack!
3) extend the closure compiler to support some of the other JSDoc
annotations so that we can generate property getters/setters and create
read-only properties. Possibly the most "correct" solution but not so good from
a maintainability perspective if we have to change the Google code...
In terms of testing: as you said, the 'missing.js' in the royale-compiler
folders is for the compiler's testing, so if we add extra testing for the
compiler with these new properties then we need that file to also include those
extra Date things. I guess it's not a massive maintenance issue if these files
are hardly ever changing.. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing some step
in the process that did an automatic sync from one to the other. The same is
true of the js.swc, it's being generated in the royale-typedefs folder and
currently I'm manually copying it to the royale-asjs folder... but for that
one, there must be something that copies it over, as that js/lib folder doesn't
exist in the original source!
thanks
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID]
Sent: 30 June 2018 07:19
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Royale compiler not handling Date.fullYear etc
Interesting. In
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclicktime.symantec.com%2Fa%2F1%2FuntftVdsWwPmiJWAVt3nm3wg6v4ZACZ9RDBNQjuszM0%3D%3Fd%3DbbejT-O_-jFYytoEIpecgb-HW7JAfVy-JYJKJjpirj9WyJta8y-Vetrzg91hMyjxwIZDBbGoPRETuW8R-_GJ2QI3JFRNDooGe4nnEJmgsbOCgX9zvdpNOtRejsS_vQ96JFtVBei96NlGXnAeb9O-n2UPHrthFwLfNhxhivyLhutMuYZf1_Bwf9uhuogWi4XEGnREN0VeGK-7HR-0IXBlFkwvMeyJ_r7KS89xbvNmYhN1EFExUVrPWOSGUU7bDbqQGwx_iQnLVTX8Lj1IsNPJvd8qUgJnR5R6P-smt5q_FBaLNjsRWDWI0U_XMUyRIY_5-Kz1H2BKLxZppDcoEdbSVn_k9bD-Eo7722e3Jajt9nKt5EOvpU8kzNvIgbQxRNW4JbQ0gyaaZG-838aZUMmtuoW39NTiDdhoowZejUVmDmKstEs8NbBBtOnE3Ck%253D%26u%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fgithub.com%252Fgoogle%252Fclosure-compiler%252Fwiki%252FAnnotating-JavaScript-for-the-Closure-Compiler&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb7acdaa31fda47dff0c508d5de553e2e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636659380078411962&sdata=oCQLuHrDHlf9BSbfTC%2F2UJgSlMLkKV2kNQ0z3FX%2F%2Bxk%3D&reserved=0
it mentions @const as the annotation. That might already work and if not, we
should probably make it work.
The missing.js in royale-compiler is just there to get the compiler's tests
to run. The royale-typedefs repo has a dependency on royale-compiler, so we
can't create a circular dependency by having royale-compiler require
royale-typedefs missing.js. They don't need to be kept in sync. The
royale-compiler version should be minimal. The one in royale-typedefs is
intended to make a library with the right and complete Browser APIs.
HTH,
-Alex
On 6/29/18, 3:55 PM, "Frost, Andrew" <andrew.fr...@harman.com> wrote:
Hi
Those date tests already test the mapping, and are running fine.
They're not getting stuck at the earlier stage which is where the original
problem lay. So I'd been thinking of adding a new test file under the below
folder, where other AS-specific testing is happening:
royale-compiler/compiler/src/test/java/as
In terms of the read-only properties, I would have hoped that the
definition in missing.js could be written:
/**
* @type {number}
* @property
* @readonly
*/
Date.prototype.timezoneOffset;
but the JSDoc parser isn't able to pick up/report upon the 'property'
or 'readonly' usage. We could add support for these perhaps, manually within
the FieldReference.java file (which is where these properties are coming in
currently) we could manually look for the "@property" and/or "@readonly" tags
within the comment.getOriginalCommentString() value; I would have preferred to
be able to call "comment.isReadOnly" or similar, but to get to that requires
changing Google's code..
So yes, hold off doing anything with the pull requests for now, I'll
see whether I can get it to do things from the typedefs side of things...
One extra note: I'm finding two "missing.js" files which aren't being
kept in sync at all (by the build tools); is this by design or should there be
some kind of a link between them?
royale-typedefs\js\src\main\javascript\missing.js
royale-compiler\compiler-externc\src\test\resources\typedefs\unit_tests\missing.js
thanks
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID]
Sent: 29 June 2018 17:38
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Royale compiler not handling Date.fullYear etc
There are Date tests in TestRoyaleGlobalClasses.java
In this case, the issue may be in how to set up a copy of the tests to
work with js.swc instead of playerglobal.swc.
Regarding read-only properties, I think the externc compiler might have
a way of doing that. It would likely involve one of the JSDoc annotations or
an interface. And the result should be a getter without a setter. I don't
have time to look for it right now. It would be best to deal with this in the
typedefs instead of in the compiler, IMO.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 6/29/18, 7:47 AM, "Frost, Andrew" <andrew.fr...@harman.com> wrote:
".. not yet" is probably the most appropriate response!!
I had wondered whether it would need some formal self-tests adding,
I'll have a dig around to see how to do this bit :-)
thanks
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 June 2018 13:35
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Royale compiler not handling Date.fullYear
etc
Cool. Are there compiler tests for these Date additions?
