1
0
Fork 0
easejs/test/ClassBuilder/MemberRestrictionTest.js

311 lines
9.1 KiB
JavaScript

/**
* Tests class builder member restrictions
*
* Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
*
* This file is part of GNU ease.js.
*
* ease.js is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the 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.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*/
require( 'common' ).testCase(
{
caseSetUp: function()
{
// XXX: the Sut is not directly tested; get rid of these!
this.Class = this.require( 'class' );
this.AbstractClass = this.require( 'class_abstract' );
this.Sut = this.require( 'ClassBuilder' );
// weak flag test data
this.weak = [
[ 'weak foo', 'foo' ], // former weak
[ 'foo', 'weak foo' ], // latter weak
[ 'weak foo', 'weak foo' ], // both weak
];
},
/**
* It's always useful to be able to quickly reference a list of reserved
* members so that an implementer can programatically handle runtime
* cases. It's also useful for testing.
*/
'Can retrieve a list of reserved members': function()
{
var reserved = this.Sut.getReservedMembers();
this.assertOk( reserved instanceof Object,
"Can retrieve hash of reserved members"
);
},
/**
* Ability to alter the reserved members list would permit implementors
* to break compatibility with libraries that use the reserved members
* being added. Furthermore, it could add unintended consequences if a
* reserved member were removed from the list and used. To put it
* simply, it could cause complete and utter chaos. As such, no. No, no,
* no.
*
* It is of course true that future versions of ease.js could add
* additional reserved members, which is why one should never prefix
* their variables in the same manner ease.js does for reserved members.
* But let's leave that to ease.js, shall we?
*/
'Cannot modify internal reserved members list': function()
{
var val = 'foo';
// attempt to add to list
this.Sut.getReservedMembers().foo = val;
this.assertNotEqual(
this.Sut.getReservedMembers().foo,
val,
"Cannot alter internal list of reserved members"
);
},
/**
* This test is to ensure that nobody (a) removes reserved members
* without understanding the consequences or (b) adds reserved members
* without properly documenting them.
*/
'Proper members are reserved': function()
{
var chk = [ '__initProps', 'constructor' ],
i = chk.length,
reserved = this.Sut.getReservedMembers();
while ( i-- )
{
var cur = chk[ i ];
this.assertOk( reserved.hasOwnProperty( cur ),
"Member '" + cur + "' should be reserved"
);
delete reserved[ cur ];
}
// ensure there are no others that we didn't expect
for ( var name in reserved )
{
this.assertFail( "Untested reserved member found: " + name );
}
},
/**
* Ensure that each of the reserved members will throw an exception if
* they are used.
*/
'All reserved members are actually reserved': function()
{
var _self = this,
reserved = this.Sut.getReservedMembers(),
count = 0;
// test each of the reserved members
for ( var name in reserved )
{
// properties
this.assertThrows(
function()
{
var obj = {};
obj[ name ] = '';
_self.Class( obj );
},
Error,
"Reserved members cannot be used in class definitions as " +
"properties"
);
// methods
this.assertThrows(
function()
{
var obj = {};
obj[ name ] = function() {};
_self.Class( obj );
},
Error,
"Reserved members cannot be used in class definitions as " +
"methods"
);
count++;
}
// ensure we weren't provided an empty object
this.assertNotEqual( count, 0,
"Reserved memebers were tested"
);
},
/**
* We want these available for the same reason that we want the
* restricted members available (see above)
*/
'Can retrieve list of forced public methods': function()
{
var pub = this.Sut.getForcedPublicMethods(),
count = 0;
this.assertOk( pub instanceof Object,
"Can retrieve hash of forced-public methods"
);
for ( var name in pub )
{
count++;
}
// ensure we weren't provided an empty object
this.assertNotEqual( count, 0,
"Forced-public method list is not empty"
);
},
/**
* See above. Same reason that we don't want reserved members to be
* modified.
*/
'Cannot modify internal forced public methods list': function()
{
var val = 'foo';
// attempt to add to list
this.Sut.getForcedPublicMethods().foo = val;
this.assertNotEqual(
this.Sut.getForcedPublicMethods().foo,
val,
"Cannot alter internal list of forced-public methods"
);
},
/**
* Ensure that an exception will be thrown for each forced-public method
* that is not declared as public in the class definition.
*/
'All forced public methods are forced to public': function()
{
var _self = this,
pub = this.Sut.getForcedPublicMethods();
// test each of the reserved members
for ( var name in pub )
{
this.assertThrows( function()
{
var obj = {};
obj[ 'private ' + name ] = function() {};
_self.Class( obj );
}, Error, "Forced-public methods must be declared as public" );
}
},
/**
* If different keywords are used, then a definition object could
* contain two members of the same name. This is probably a bug in the
* user's implementation, so we should flip our shit.
*
* But, see the next test.
*/
'Cannot define two members of the same name': function()
{
var _self = this;
this.assertThrows( function()
{
// duplicate foos
_self.Class(
{
'public foo': function() {},
'protected foo': function() {},
} );
} );
},
/**
* Code generation tools may find it convenient to declare a duplicate
* member without knowing whether or not a duplicate will exist; this
* may save time and complexity when ease.js has been designed to handle
* certain situations. If at least one of the conflicting members has
* been flagged as `weak', then we should ignore the error.
*
* As an example, this is used interally with ease.js to inherit
* abstract members from traits while still permitting concrete
* definitions.
*/
'@each(weak) Can define members of the same name if one is weak':
function( weak )
{
// TODO: this makes assumptions about how the code works; the code
// needs to be refactored to permit more sane testing (since right
// now it'd be a clusterfuck)
var dfn = {};
dfn[ 'abstract ' + weak[ 0 ] ] = [];
dfn[ 'abstract ' + weak[ 1 ] ] = [];
var _self = this;
this.assertDoesNotThrow( function()
{
_self.AbstractClass( dfn );
} );
},
/**
* During the course of processing, certain data are accumulated into
* the member builder state; this state must be post-processed to
* complete anything that may be pending.
*/
'Member builder state is ended after processing': function()
{
var _self = this,
build = this.require( 'MemberBuilder' )();
var sut = this.Sut(
this.require( 'warn' ).DismissiveHandler(),
build,
this.require( 'VisibilityObjectFactoryFactory' )
.fromEnvironment()
);
// TODO: test that we're passed the right state
var called = false;
build.end = function( state )
{
called = true;
};
sut.build( {} );
this.assertOk( called );
},
} );