Update language status and rewrite a test

Update language status and rewrite a test

R=ahe@google.com, kustermann@google.com
BUG=

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=26772

[Søren Gjesse, 2013-08-27 14:45:58]

When the test is approves I will open issues and replace the XXXs.

[kustermann, 2013-08-27 16:33:06]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/1/tests/language/not_eno...
File tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/1/tests/language/not_eno...
tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart:39: : super(b: 1)  ///
05: runtime error
In the 'not_enough_positional_arguments_test/none' multitest, this line will not
be included.
So it's just 
  class F extends D {
    F();
  }
But class D does not have an empty constructor. Which means the analyzer will
fail on 'not_enough_positional_arguments_test/none'.
Is that correct?

I think the '../none' cases should *always* be free of errors.

[ahe, 2013-08-27 17:14:50]

Nice work, but let's take another round.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/1/tests/language/not_eno...
File tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/1/tests/language/not_eno...
tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart:17: : super(b: 1)  ///
01: runtime error
This is not going to work.

When this line is removed, the code is still broken:

class B {
  B()
  ;
}

This is equivalent to:

class B {
  B() : super()
  ;
}

So the analyzer should reject this.

I suggest you change it like this:

class A {
  A();
  A.test(a, [b]);
}

class B {
  B()
      : super.test(b: 1) /// 01: runtime error, static warning
  ;
}

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/1/tests/language/not_eno...
tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart:23: : super(b: 1)  ///
02: runtime error
Ditto.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/1/tests/language/not_eno...
tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart:45: new B();  /// 01:
continued
I think you should be able to get rid of all the continued here. This will also
help you ensure the test is accepted by the analyzer.

[Søren Gjesse, 2013-08-28 08:11:05]

PTAL

Thanks for reviewing - the test is much better now. The
not_enough_positional_arguments_test/none now pass on the analyzer(s).

I will still remember to replace XXX with new issue numbers.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/1/tests/language/not_eno...
File tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/1/tests/language/not_eno...
tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart:17: : super(b: 1)  ///
01: runtime error
On 2013/08/27 17:14:50, ahe wrote:
> This is not going to work.
> 
> When this line is removed, the code is still broken:
> 
> class B {
>   B()
>   ;
> }
> 
> This is equivalent to:
> 
> class B {
>   B() : super()
>   ;
> }
> 
> So the analyzer should reject this.
> 
> I suggest you change it like this:
> 
> class A {
>   A();
>   A.test(a, [b]);
> }
> 
> class B {
>   B()
>       : super.test(b: 1) /// 01: runtime error, static warning
>   ;
> }

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/1/tests/language/not_eno...
tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart:23: : super(b: 1)  ///
02: runtime error
On 2013/08/27 17:14:50, ahe wrote:
> Ditto.

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/1/tests/language/not_eno...
tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart:39: : super(b: 1)  ///
05: runtime error
On 2013/08/27 16:33:06, kustermann wrote:
> In the 'not_enough_positional_arguments_test/none' multitest, this line will
not
> be included.
> So it's just 
>   class F extends D {
>     F();
>   }
> But class D does not have an empty constructor. Which means the analyzer will
> fail on 'not_enough_positional_arguments_test/none'.
> Is that correct?
> 
> I think the '../none' cases should *always* be free of errors.

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/1/tests/language/not_eno...
tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart:45: new B();  /// 01:
continued
On 2013/08/27 17:14:50, ahe wrote:
> I think you should be able to get rid of all the continued here. This will
also
> help you ensure the test is accepted by the analyzer.

Done.

[kustermann, 2013-08-28 08:28:18]

LGTM with comment.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/7001/tests/language/not_...
File tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/7001/tests/language/not_...
tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart:37: }
Is this "/// 04" (class E) not testing the same thing as "/// 01" (class B)?

[Søren Gjesse, 2013-08-28 08:42:48]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/7001/tests/language/not_...
File tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/23460006/diff/7001/tests/language/not_...
tests/language/not_enough_positional_arguments_test.dart:37: }
On 2013/08/28 08:28:19, kustermann wrote:
> Is this "/// 04" (class E) not testing the same thing as "/// 01" (class B)?

True. Removed E.

[ahe, 2013-08-28 08:43:20]

LGTM!

[Søren Gjesse, 2013-08-28 08:52:48]

Committed patchset #4 manually as r26772 (presubmit successful).