On Wed, 21 May 2025 17:09:29 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> The test was originally written with product builds in mind; it didn't
>> consider the slowness of debug builds, thus causing tests to fail.
>>
>> Also there was a bug in testWeakAgainstClassValue: the test need to flush
>> the backing map
On Wed, 21 May 2025 17:09:29 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> The test was originally written with product builds in mind; it didn't
>> consider the slowness of debug builds, thus causing tests to fail.
>>
>> Also there was a bug in testWeakAgainstClassValue: the test need to flush
>> the backing map
> The test was originally written with product builds in mind; it didn't
> consider the slowness of debug builds, thus causing tests to fail.
>
> Also there was a bug in testWeakAgainstClassValue: the test need to flush the
> backing map in the class to have the weak value removed. It is fixed i
On Sun, 18 May 2025 21:58:04 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> The test was originally written with product builds in mind; it didn't
> consider the slowness of debug builds, thus causing tests to fail.
>
> Also there was a bug in testWeakAgainstClassValue: the test need to flush the
> backing map in t
On Sun, 18 May 2025 21:58:04 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> The test was originally written with product builds in mind; it didn't
> consider the slowness of debug builds, thus causing tests to fail.
>
> Also there was a bug in testWeakAgainstClassValue: the test need to flush the
> backing map in t
The test was originally written with product builds in mind; it didn't consider
the slowness of debug builds, thus causing tests to fail.
Also there was a bug in testWeakAgainstClassValue: the test need to flush the
backing map in the class to have the weak value removed. It is fixed in this
pa
