So this is the patch I intend to apply such that message instructions report exactly the same errors
as .Message and .Object:
Index: interpreter/expression/ExpressionMessage.cpp
===================================================================
--- interpreter/expression/ExpressionMessage.cpp (revision 12394)
+++ interpreter/expression/ExpressionMessage.cpp (working copy)
@@ -162,6 +162,13 @@
if (super != OREF_NULL)
{
_super = (RexxClass *)super->evaluate(context, stack);
+ // _super an instance of TheClassClass
+ if (!_super->isInstanceOf(TheClassClass))
+ {
+ reportException(Error_Invalid_argument_noclass, "SCOPE",
"Class");
+ }
+ // validate the starting scope
+ _target->validateScopeOverride(_super);
// we send the message using the stack, which
// expects to find the target and the arguments
// on the stack, but not the super. We need to
Index: interpreter/instructions/MessageInstruction.cpp
===================================================================
--- interpreter/instructions/MessageInstruction.cpp (revision 12394)
+++ interpreter/instructions/MessageInstruction.cpp (working copy)
@@ -161,6 +161,13 @@
{
// get the superclass target
_super = (RexxClass *)super->evaluate(context, stack);
+ // _super an instance of TheClassClass
+ if (!_super->isInstanceOf(TheClassClass))
+ {
+ reportException(Error_Invalid_argument_noclass, "SCOPE",
"Class");
+ }
+ // validate the starting scope
+ _target->validateScopeOverride(_super);
// we send the message using the stack, which
// expects to find the target and the arguments
// on the stack, but not the super. We need to
---rony
On 17.05.2022 15:46, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
Forgot to add tests for the message instructions so went back to the testgroup to add them and
found out, that the tests for illegal overrides returned 97.1 and not what .Message and .Object
raise, namely 93.957 (receiver class not a subclass of override object) and 88.914 (SCOPE must be
instance of class Class).
Instead of having 97.1 (object method not found), which does not point at the reason I would like
a message instructions to report an error with the override explicitly. Of course, the tests
depend on whether 97.1 or 93.957 gets reported.
To do so I intend to add this:
Index: interpreter/expression/ExpressionMessage.cpp
===================================================================
--- interpreter/expression/ExpressionMessage.cpp (revision 12394)
+++ interpreter/expression/ExpressionMessage.cpp (working copy)
@@ -162,6 +162,8 @@
if (super != OREF_NULL)
{
_super = (RexxClass *)super->evaluate(context, stack);
+ // validate the starting scope
+ _target->validateScopeOverride(_super);
// we send the message using the stack, which
// expects to find the target and the arguments
// on the stack, but not the super. We need to
Index: interpreter/instructions/MessageInstruction.cpp
===================================================================
--- interpreter/instructions/MessageInstruction.cpp (revision 12394)
+++ interpreter/instructions/MessageInstruction.cpp (working copy)
@@ -161,6 +161,8 @@
{
// get the superclass target
_super = (RexxClass *)super->evaluate(context, stack);
+ // validate the starting scope
+ _target->validateScopeOverride(_super);
// we send the message using the stack, which
// expects to find the target and the arguments
// on the stack, but not the super. We need to
Maybe a test whether _super is an instance of class Class should be carried out first to become
able to also raise 88.914? If so, what would be the easiest way to do so?
Am I missing something else? Are there any objections?
---rony
On 17.05.2022 14:03, Rick McGuire wrote:
I repeat, these are not acceptable tests. Please make the appropriate corrections to them. Turn
these into actual functional tests, otherwise they have no real purpose.
Rick
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:01 AM Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at>
wrote:
On 17.05.2022 13:37, Rick McGuire wrote:
This is not an acceptable way to fix these tests. Just removing the
expected error and
adding a totally unnecessary tautological assertion is not enough. These
tests need to also
verify that the correct method has been invoked by checking the return
value from the method
call.
Two remarks:
* There were existing tests that expected an error, if the override was
not done to a
message to self. These tests would now fail as these overrides are
allowed. So removing
the expected error turns the test into the opposite, testing whether an
override is
accepted and carried out. If the override takes place successfully
assertTrue(.true) is
used to increase the success assertion counter, otherwise the test
suite would not be
able to increase that counter anymore.
* Ad testing whether the overrides work correctly, i.e. invoking the
expected methods,
these tests are the ones that I added explicitly, such that this aspect
gets tested as
well for send, sendWith, start, startWith for both, the .Message and
the .Object classes.
If you look up these test groups you will see that the tests include
override tests for
mixinclasses where the results of the invoked messages get tested for
correctness. It may
be the case that I am missing some tests, if so, please advise.
---rony
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
