Alex, thanks for the explanation earlier, that really helped me work
through this. I think I cleared up everything in those tests, the builds
seem to be working again in any case.
Those tools you shared are really helpful and were a good way to get
through this with sanity intact, but if this type of test maintenance work
is routine I might have to come up with an even faster way that is more
'one step' to get to where you end up in your text splitter tool!
When I was fixing what I had missed for the maven build the previous day I
did also find the console output helpful there for expected vs. got in the
failed test reports, I was able to paste those into a notepad++ pair of doc
windows and run a compare/diiff view.
I also found some errors with part of the framework code i added for
reflection, which I picked up using newer unit tests I added and I
addressed those yesterrday. I managed to break the CI build (temporarily)
on the docs side as I was fixing that.
There seems to be a difference between the way the compiler-switch blocks
work in falcon/jx vs. the regular flex compiler, is there not? I have been
caught out with this on more than one occasion. I am pretty sure you can
enclose a set of methods and variable declarations etc inside a single
compiler switch block in the older compiler, but seems to be ignored in
falcon (at least it was for jx) and you need to add the switch to each
member definition. Is this a bug or is it an intentional change? I'm fine
with the difference (if I am right about it?) but just wondered if it was
intended or not.
class SomeClass {
COMPILE::JS {
static private var something:Boolean;
static internal method doSomething():void{
}
}
//shared stuff
}
I see the above missing out the COMPILE::JS block completely in the output
in jx, but it works if you annotate the class members individually
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/28/16, 10:13 PM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >ok great, thanks. I have to step aside for an hour or so. I will check it
> >after that
>
> I don't think there's a big rush. This is an opportunity to share where
> some of the pieces are and how I deal with them.
>
> Thanks for sticking with it,
> -Alex
>
>
