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.)
Getting ready for release means that we need to rest assured that everything is
operating as it should. Tests do an excellent job at aiding in this, but they
cannot cover everything. For example, a simple missing comma in a variable
declaration list could have terrible, global consequences.
Ah - you have to love those "ah-ha!" moments. The issue here is that both
uglify-js and closure compiler mangled the names in such a way that the var and
the function name had different values. In the case of closure compiler, the
function name was used to instantiate the constructor if the 'new' keyword was
omitted. This worked fine in all other tested browsers, but IE handles it
differently.
This little experience was rather frustrating. Indeed, it would imply that
the static implementation (at least, accessing protected and private static
members) was always broken in FF. I should be a bit more diligent in my testing.
Or perhaps it broke in a more recent version of FF, which is more likely. The
problem seems to be that we used defineSecureProp() for an assignment to the
actual class, then later properly assigned it to class.___$$svis$$.
Of course, defineSecureProp() makes it read-only, so this failed, causing
an improper assignment for __self, breaking the implementation. As such,
this probably broke in newer versions of FF and worked properly in older versions.
More concerningly is that the implementations clearly differ between Chromium
and Firefox. It may be that Firefox checks the prototype chain, whereas Chromium
(v8, specifically) will simply write to that object, ignoring that the property
further down the prototype chain is read-only.
I'm unsure as to why I originally placed them in separate methods. propParse() will
always find a getter at the same time it finds a setter, and vice versa, should they
both have been defined on the object.
Mike Gerwitz