2010-11-10 23:19:46 -05:00
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
* Tests class getter/setter inheritance
|
|
|
|
*
|
2013-12-20 00:49:06 -05:00
|
|
|
* Copyright (C) 2010, 2011, 2013 Mike Gerwitz
|
2010-11-10 23:19:46 -05:00
|
|
|
*
|
2013-12-22 09:37:21 -05:00
|
|
|
* This file is part of GNU ease.js.
|
2010-11-10 23:19:46 -05:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* ease.js is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
|
Relicensed under the GPLv3+
This project was originally LGPLv+-licensed to encourage its use in a community
that is largely copyleft-phobic. After further reflection, that was a mistake,
as adoption is not the important factor here---software freedom is.
When submitting ease.js to the GNU project, it was asked if I would be willing
to relicense it under the GPLv3+; I agreed happily, because there is no reason
why we should provide proprietary software any sort of edge. Indeed, proprietary
JavaScript is a huge problem since it is automatically downloaded on the user's
PC generally without them even knowing, and is a current focus for the FSF. As
such, to remain firm in our stance against proprietary JavaScript, relicensing
made the most sense for GNU.
This is likely to upset current users of ease.js. I am not sure of their
number---I have only seen download counts periodically on npmjs.org---but I know
there are at least a small number. These users are free to continue using the
previous LGPL'd releases, but with the understanding that there will be no
further maintenance (not even bug fixes). If possible, users should use the
GPL-licensed versions and release their software as free software.
Here comes GNU ease.js.
2013-12-20 01:00:35 -05:00
|
|
|
* terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
|
|
|
|
* Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later
|
|
|
|
* version.
|
2010-11-10 23:19:46 -05:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
|
|
|
|
* ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
|
Relicensed under the GPLv3+
This project was originally LGPLv+-licensed to encourage its use in a community
that is largely copyleft-phobic. After further reflection, that was a mistake,
as adoption is not the important factor here---software freedom is.
When submitting ease.js to the GNU project, it was asked if I would be willing
to relicense it under the GPLv3+; I agreed happily, because there is no reason
why we should provide proprietary software any sort of edge. Indeed, proprietary
JavaScript is a huge problem since it is automatically downloaded on the user's
PC generally without them even knowing, and is a current focus for the FSF. As
such, to remain firm in our stance against proprietary JavaScript, relicensing
made the most sense for GNU.
This is likely to upset current users of ease.js. I am not sure of their
number---I have only seen download counts periodically on npmjs.org---but I know
there are at least a small number. These users are free to continue using the
previous LGPL'd releases, but with the understanding that there will be no
further maintenance (not even bug fixes). If possible, users should use the
GPL-licensed versions and release their software as free software.
Here comes GNU ease.js.
2013-12-20 01:00:35 -05:00
|
|
|
* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for
|
|
|
|
* more details.
|
2010-11-10 23:19:46 -05:00
|
|
|
*
|
Relicensed under the GPLv3+
This project was originally LGPLv+-licensed to encourage its use in a community
that is largely copyleft-phobic. After further reflection, that was a mistake,
as adoption is not the important factor here---software freedom is.
When submitting ease.js to the GNU project, it was asked if I would be willing
to relicense it under the GPLv3+; I agreed happily, because there is no reason
why we should provide proprietary software any sort of edge. Indeed, proprietary
JavaScript is a huge problem since it is automatically downloaded on the user's
PC generally without them even knowing, and is a current focus for the FSF. As
such, to remain firm in our stance against proprietary JavaScript, relicensing
made the most sense for GNU.
This is likely to upset current users of ease.js. I am not sure of their
number---I have only seen download counts periodically on npmjs.org---but I know
there are at least a small number. These users are free to continue using the
previous LGPL'd releases, but with the understanding that there will be no
further maintenance (not even bug fixes). If possible, users should use the
GPL-licensed versions and release their software as free software.
Here comes GNU ease.js.
2013-12-20 01:00:35 -05:00
|
|
|
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with
|
|
|
|
* this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
|
2010-11-10 23:19:46 -05:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
* @author Mike Gerwitz
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
2010-12-21 23:25:12 -05:00
|
|
|
var common = require( './common' ),
|
|
|
|
assert = require( 'assert' ),
|
2010-12-28 09:02:23 -05:00
|
|
|
Class = common.require( 'class' ),
|
2011-03-07 22:44:47 -05:00
|
|
|
util = common.require( 'util' ),
|
2010-11-10 23:19:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2010-12-28 09:02:23 -05:00
|
|
|
foo_def = {},
|
|
|
|
sub_foo_def = {}
|
|
|
|
;
|
2010-11-10 23:19:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2011-03-07 22:44:47 -05:00
|
|
|
// don't perform these tests if getters/setters are unsupported
|
|
|
|
if ( util.definePropertyFallback() )
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2010-11-10 23:19:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2010-12-28 09:02:23 -05:00
|
|
|
// to prevent syntax errors in browsers that do not support getters/setters in
|
|
|
|
// object notation
|
2011-03-07 22:44:47 -05:00
|
|
|
Object.defineProperty( foo_def, 'foo', {
|
|
|
|
get: function ()
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return this._foo;
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
set: function ( val )
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
this._foo = ''+( val );
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
enumerable: true,
|
2010-12-28 09:02:23 -05:00
|
|
|
} );
|
2010-11-10 23:19:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2011-12-22 23:10:01 -05:00
|
|
|
Object.defineProperty( foo_def, 'virtual bar', {
|
2011-03-07 22:44:47 -05:00
|
|
|
get: function ()
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return 'durp';
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
set: function ( val )
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
enumerable: true,
|
2010-12-28 09:02:23 -05:00
|
|
|
} );
|
2011-03-07 22:44:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2011-12-22 23:10:01 -05:00
|
|
|
Object.defineProperty( sub_foo_def, 'override bar', {
|
2011-03-07 22:44:47 -05:00
|
|
|
get: function ()
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
return this.bar2;
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
set: function ( val )
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
this.bar2 = val;
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
enumerable: true,
|
2010-12-28 09:02:23 -05:00
|
|
|
} );
|
2010-11-10 23:19:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
'this' now properly binds to the private member object of the instance for getters/setters
Getters/setters did not get much attention during the initial development of
ease.js, simply because there was such a strong focus on pre-ES5
compatibility---ease.js was created for a project that strongly required it.
Given that, getters/setters were not used, since those are ES5 features. As
such, I find that two things have happened:
1. There was little incentive to provide a proper implementation; even though
I noticed the issues during the initial development, they were left
unresolved and were then forgotten about as the project lay dormant for a
while.
2. The project was dormant because it was working as intended (sure, there
are still things on the TODO-list feature-wise). Since getters/setters were
unused in the project for which ease.js was created, the bug was never
found and so never addressed.
That said, I now am using getters/setters in a project with ease.js and noticed
a very odd bug that could not be explained by that project's implementation.
Sure enough, it was an ease.js issue and this commit resolves it.
Now, there is more to be said about this commit. Mainly, it should be noted that
MemberBuilder.buildGetterSetter, when compared with its method counterpart
(buildMethod) is incomplete---it does not properly address overrides, the
abstract keyword, proxies or the possibility of method hiding. This is certainly
something that I will get to, but I want to get this fix out as soon as I can.
Since overriding ES5 getters/setters (rather than explicit methods) is more
likely to be a rarity, and since a partial fix is better than no fix, this will
likely be tagged immediately and a further fix will follow in the (hopefully
near) future.
(This is an interesting example of how glaring bugs manage to slip through the
cracks, even when the developer is initially aware of them.)
2013-01-19 20:54:30 -05:00
|
|
|
// this is important since the system may freeze the object, so we must have
|
|
|
|
// declared it in advance
|
|
|
|
foo_def.bar2 = '';
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-12-28 09:02:23 -05:00
|
|
|
var Foo = Class.extend( foo_def ),
|
|
|
|
SubFoo = Foo.extend( sub_foo_def );
|
2010-11-10 23:19:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var foo = new Foo(),
|
|
|
|
sub = new SubFoo(),
|
|
|
|
val = 'val';
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// ensure we have our act together before continuing
|
|
|
|
foo.foo = val;
|
|
|
|
assert.equal(
|
|
|
|
foo.foo,
|
|
|
|
val,
|
|
|
|
"Sanity check"
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// foo should be inherited as-is (if this doesn't work, someone went out of
|
|
|
|
// their way to break it, as it works by default!)
|
|
|
|
sub.foo = val = 'val2';
|
|
|
|
assert.equal(
|
|
|
|
sub.foo,
|
|
|
|
val,
|
|
|
|
"Subtypes should inherit getter/setters"
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sub.bar = val = 'val3';
|
|
|
|
assert.equal(
|
|
|
|
sub.bar,
|
|
|
|
val,
|
|
|
|
"Subtypes should be able to override getter/setters"
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert.equal(
|
|
|
|
sub.bar2,
|
|
|
|
val,
|
|
|
|
"Subtypes should be able to override getter/setters (check 2)"
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|