1
0
Fork 0
easejs/test/MemberBuilderValidator/PropertyTest.js

196 lines
5.7 KiB
JavaScript

/**
* Tests member builder validation rules
*
* Copyright (C) 2010,2011 Mike Gerwitz
*
* This file is part of ease.js.
*
* ease.js is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
* terms of the GNU Lesser 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 Lesser General Public License
* for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
* along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*
* @author Mike Gerwitz
*/
var shared = require( __dirname + '/inc-common' );
require( 'common' ).testCase(
{
caseSetUp: function()
{
var _self = this;
this.quickFailureTest = function()
{
shared.quickFailureTest.apply( _self, arguments );
};
this.quickKeywordPropTest = function( keywords, identifier, prev )
{
shared.quickKeywordTest.call( this,
'validateProperty', keywords, identifier, prev
);
};
this.quickVisChangeTest = function( start, override, failtest, failstr )
{
shared.quickVisChangeTest.call( _self, start, override, failtest,
function( name, startobj, overrideobj )
{
_self.sut.validateProperty(
name, 'bar', overrideobj,
{ member: 'foo' },
startobj
);
},
failstr
);
};
},
setUp: function()
{
this.sut = this.require( 'MemberBuilderValidator' )();
},
/**
* Clearly, overriding a method with a property will have terrible
* polymorphic consequences on the resulting interface.
*/
'Cannot override method with property': function()
{
var name = 'foo',
_self = this;
this.quickFailureTest( name, 'property', function()
{
// attempt to override a method
_self.sut.validateProperty(
name, 'bar', {},
{ member: function() {} },
{}
);
} );
},
/**
* The concept of an abstract property does not make sense, as properties
* simply represent placeholders for values. Whether or not they actually
* hold a value is irrelevant.
*/
'Cannot declare abstract property': function()
{
this.quickKeywordPropTest( [ 'abstract' ], 'abstract' );
},
/**
* Properties, unlike methods, are virtual by default. If a property's value
* can be reassigned, why would a subclass not be able to reassign it? If
* one wishes to prevent a property's value from changing, they should use
* the visibility modifiers or declare the property as a constant.
*/
'Cannot declare virtual property': function()
{
this.quickKeywordPropTest( [ 'virtual' ], 'virtual' );
},
/**
* Declaring a constant as static would be redundant.
*/
'Cannot declare static const property': function()
{
this.quickKeywordPropTest( [ 'static', 'const' ], 'Static' );
},
/*
* While getters act as properties, it doesn't make sense to override
* getters/setters with properties because they are fundamentally different.
*/
'Cannot override getter/setter with property': function()
{
var name = 'foo',
_self = this;
// test getter
this.quickFailureTest( name, 'getter/setter', function()
{
_self.sut.validateProperty(
name, 'bar', {},
{ get: function() {} },
{}
);
} );
// test setter
this.quickFailureTest( name, 'getter/setter', function()
{
_self.sut.validateProperty(
name, 'bar', {},
{ set: function() {} },
{}
);
} );
},
/**
* De-escalating the visibility of a property would alter the interface of a
* subtype, which would not be polymorphic.
*/
'Properties do not support visibility de-escalation': function()
{
this.quickVisChangeTest( 'public', 'protected', true );
this.quickVisChangeTest( 'protected', 'private', true );
},
/**
* Contrary to the above test, we have no such problem with visibility
* escalation.
*/
'Properties do support visibility escalation and equality': function()
{
var _self = this;
shared.visEscalationTest( function( cur )
{
_self.quickVisChangeTest( cur[ 0 ], cur[ 1 ], false );
} );
},
/**
* Wait - what? That doesn't make sense from an OOP perspective, now does
* it! Unfortunately, we're forced into this restriction in order to
* properly support fallback to pre-ES5 environments where the visibility
* object is a single layer, rather than three. With this impl, all members
* are public and private name conflicts would result in supertypes and
* subtypes altering eachothers' private members (see manual for more
* information).
*/
'Cannot redeclare private properties in subtypes': function()
{
var _self = this;
shared.privateNamingConflictTest( function( cur )
{
_self.quickVisChangeTest( cur[ 0 ], cur[ 1 ], true, 'conflict' );
} );
},
} );