On 2/13/2014, 1:12 PM, Chris Kitching wrote:
Wouldn't that change make it much easier to finally kill off the annoying @RobocopTarget annotations I sprinkled through the codebase? See, if Proguard were run over both the Robocop and Fennec classes at once, it would be able to figure out the calls from one to the other by itself and automagically produce a consistent output - no need for annotations.
This would be nice, but I'm not sure Proguard supports "consumers that are not themselves part of the resulting JAR file". Worth investigating, for sure.
There'd be other things to think about before actually doing that - is it sensilble to optimise the tests? Would the increased freedom of being able to "just reference" anything from Fennec in robocop lead to so many entry points that Proguard ends up effectively doing nothing? (Fixed by rerunning Proguard on optimised builds omitting Robocop classes - but then, testing not quite the same thing you're deploying?)
I have been thinking that we should go debug/release builds with only the latter Proguarded, since the Proguard "contract" is that it should not change behaviour. (Of course, that's a lie, since reflection, etc interact with Proguard.)
Thanks for suggesting this! Nick _______________________________________________ mobile-firefox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev
