test failures

Jonathan Gibbons jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com
Thu Apr 25 19:55:50 PDT 2013


Thanks for the insight of DocA.

I would suggest renaming to avoid future confusion.

I'm also open to seeing the test cases renamed :-)

-- Jon

On 04/25/2013 07:50 PM, Werner Dietl wrote:
> Jon
>>         39 @Target({TYPE_USE})
>>         40 @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>>         41 @interface A {}
>>         43 @Target({TYPE_USE})
>>         44 @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>>         45 @Documented
>>         46 @interface DA {}
>> Generally, DA is typically used to represent "declaration annotation", so it
>> seems strange to see a target of TYPE_USE on an annotation called DA.
> I guess whoever wrote that test case thought of "DA" as "documented
> annotation" instead of "declaration annotation".
> Should "DA" be renamed to "DocA"? Or should we just mention this confusion?
>> Also, it seems that the test cases in this file use numbering with holes in,
>> that seems similar but not identical to the enum constants in TargetType.
>> Should we cross-check and.or rationalize these constants?
> I find it really ugly style that the test case depends on these enum constants.
> When I last renumbered the enum constants I hadn't noticed this dependency.
> If we change these, we should just use meaningful names instead of the
> values - who know how many more time the EG changes their mind ;-)
> cu, WMD.
> --
> http://www.google.com/profiles/wdietl

More information about the type-annotations-dev mailing list