[gwt-contrib] Re: One-line fix to SelectionScript's fallback logic for (issue183801)

2010-03-23 Thread spoon
Thanks, Ray. I agree it would be helpful to factor out the mock classes somewhere reusable. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/183801/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscri

[gwt-contrib] Re: One-line fix to SelectionScript's fallback logic for (issue183801)

2010-03-22 Thread cromwellian
LGTM. In the future, we might want to move some of those mock classes into a LinkerTestBase class or something if we find we need to write more linker tests. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/183801/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors To unsubscribe from

Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: One-line fix to SelectionScript's fallback logic for

2010-03-16 Thread Miguel Méndez
Thanks Lex! 2010/3/12 Lex Spoon > 2010/3/11 Miguel Méndez > > +1 to Ray's question. I know that you were simply doing a fix Lex, but we >> need to think about how we test these "features". >> > > I agree. I'll work out a test. -Lex > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-C

[gwt-contrib] Re: One-line fix to SelectionScript's fallback logic for

2010-03-16 Thread spoon
Here's a test case. Can either of you review it? http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/183801 -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

[gwt-contrib] Re: One-line fix to SelectionScript's fallback logic for

2010-03-16 Thread spoon
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/183801 -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: One-line fix to SelectionScript's fallback logic for

2010-03-12 Thread Lex Spoon
2010/3/11 Miguel Méndez > +1 to Ray's question. I know that you were simply doing a fix Lex, but we > need to think about how we test these "features". > I agree. I'll work out a test. -Lex -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: One-line fix to SelectionScript's fallback logic for

2010-03-11 Thread Miguel Méndez
+1 to Ray's question. I know that you were simply doing a fix Lex, but we need to think about how we test these "features". On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 9:49 PM, wrote: > > LGTM. On a side note, is there a way to write a test case for this? > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/183801 > > -- > h

[gwt-contrib] Re: One-line fix to SelectionScript's fallback logic for

2010-03-11 Thread cromwellian
LGTM. On a side note, is there a way to write a test case for this? http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/183801 -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

[gwt-contrib] Re: One-line fix to SelectionScript's fallback logic for

2010-03-11 Thread scottb
LGTM http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/183801 -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

[gwt-contrib] Re: One-line fix to SelectionScript's fallback logic for

2010-03-11 Thread spoon
Can you review this, Ray? The second call to link() should start with the results of the first call to link(). http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/183801 -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors