Attachment 49701 Details for Bug 156591 – Proposed patch

[patch] Proposed patch

156591.txt (text/plain), 4.78 KB, created by Philipe Mulet

on 2006-09-08 06:05:40 EDT

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Philipe Mulet

Created: 2006-09-08 06:05:40 EDT

Size: 4.78 KB

patch

obsolete

>### Eclipse Workspace Patch 1.0
>#P org.eclipse.jdt.core.tests.compiler
>Index: src/org/eclipse/jdt/core/tests/compiler/regression/EnumTest.java
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /cvsroot/eclipse/org.eclipse.jdt.core.tests.compiler/src/org/eclipse/jdt/core/tests/compiler/regression/EnumTest.java,v
>retrieving revision 1.108
>diff -u -r1.108 EnumTest.java
>--- src/org/eclipse/jdt/core/tests/compiler/regression/EnumTest.java	8 Sep 2006 01:09:16 -0000	1.108
>+++ src/org/eclipse/jdt/core/tests/compiler/regression/EnumTest.java	8 Sep 2006 10:08:27 -0000
>@@ -4875,4 +4875,72 @@
>      },
> 	"0");
> }
>+//https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=156591
>+public void test138() {
>+ this.runNegativeTest(
>+     new String[] {
>+    	        "X.java",
>+ 			"public enum X {\n" + 
>+			"	PLUS {\n" + 
>+			"		double eval(double x, double y) {\n" + 
>+			"			return x + y;\n" + 
>+			"		}\n" + 
>+			"	},\n" + 
>+			"	MINUS {\n" + 
>+			"		@Override\n" +
>+			"		abstract double eval(double x, double y);\n" + 
>+			"	};\n" + 
>+			"\n" + 
>+			"	abstract double eval(double x, double y);\n" + 
>+			"}\n" + 
>+			"\n", // =================
>+     },
>+		"----------\n" + 
>+		"1. WARNING in X.java (at line 3)\n" + 
>+		"	double eval(double x, double y) {\n" + 
>+		"	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n" + 
>+		"The method eval(double, double) of type new X(){} should be tagged with @Override since it actually overrides a superclass method\n" + 
>+		"----------\n" + 
>+		"2. ERROR in X.java (at line 9)\n" + 
>+		"	abstract double eval(double x, double y);\n" + 
>+		"	                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n" + 
>+		"The abstract method eval in type new X(){} can only be defined by an abstract class\n" + 
>+		"----------\n");
>+}
>+//https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=156591 - variation
>+public void test139() {
>+ this.runNegativeTest(
>+     new String[] {
>+    	        "X.java",
>+ 			"public enum X {\n" + 
>+			"	PLUS {\n" + 
>+			"		double eval(double x, double y) {\n" + 
>+			"			return x + y;\n" + 
>+			"		}\n" + 
>+			"	},\n" + 
>+			"	MINUS {\n" + 
>+			"		abstract double eval2(double x, double y);\n" + 
>+			"	};\n" + 
>+			"\n" + 
>+			"	abstract double eval(double x, double y);\n" + 
>+			"}\n" + 
>+			"\n", // =================
>+     },
>+		"----------\n" + 
>+		"1. WARNING in X.java (at line 3)\n" + 
>+		"	double eval(double x, double y) {\n" + 
>+		"	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n" + 
>+		"The method eval(double, double) of type new X(){} should be tagged with @Override since it actually overrides a superclass method\n" + 
>+		"----------\n" + 
>+		"2. ERROR in X.java (at line 7)\n" + 
>+		"	MINUS {\n" + 
>+		"	      ^\n" + 
>+		"The type new X(){} must implement the inherited abstract method X.eval(double, double)\n" + 
>+		"----------\n" + 
>+		"3. ERROR in X.java (at line 8)\n" + 
>+		"	abstract double eval2(double x, double y);\n" + 
>+		"	                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n" + 
>+		"The abstract method eval2 in type new X(){} can only be defined by an abstract class\n" + 
>+		"----------\n");
>+}
> }
>\ No newline at end of file
>#P org.eclipse.jdt.core
>Index: compiler/org/eclipse/jdt/internal/compiler/lookup/ClassScope.java
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /cvsroot/eclipse/org.eclipse.jdt.core/compiler/org/eclipse/jdt/internal/compiler/lookup/ClassScope.java,v
>retrieving revision 1.139
>diff -u -r1.139 ClassScope.java
>--- compiler/org/eclipse/jdt/internal/compiler/lookup/ClassScope.java	8 Sep 2006 01:09:04 -0000	1.139
>+++ compiler/org/eclipse/jdt/internal/compiler/lookup/ClassScope.java	8 Sep 2006 10:08:29 -0000
>@@ -456,14 +456,15 @@
> 				if ((realModifiers & UNEXPECTED_MODIFIERS) != 0)
> 					problemReporter().illegalModifierForEnum(sourceType);
> 			}
>-
>-			// what about inherited interface methods?
>-			if ((referenceContext.bits & ASTNode.HasAbstractMethods) != 0) {
>-				modifiers |= ClassFileConstants.AccAbstract;
>-			} else if (!sourceType.isAnonymousType()) {
>-				// body of enum constant must implement any inherited abstract methods
>-				// enum type needs to implement abstract methods if one of its constants does not supply a body
>+			if (!sourceType.isAnonymousType()) {
> 				checkAbstractEnum: {
>+					// does define abstract methods ?
>+					if ((referenceContext.bits & ASTNode.HasAbstractMethods) != 0) {
>+						modifiers |= ClassFileConstants.AccAbstract;
>+						break checkAbstractEnum;
>+					} 					
>+					// body of enum constant must implement any inherited abstract methods
>+					// enum type needs to implement abstract methods if one of its constants does not supply a body
> 					TypeDeclaration typeDeclaration = this.referenceContext;
> 					FieldDeclaration[] fields = typeDeclaration.fields;
> 					int fieldsLength = fields == null ? 0 : fields.length;

Actions: View | Diff

Attachments on bug 156591: 49701 | 49705