New test exposes some bugs in the static analysis (dartc) engine on assignment problems

tests/language/src/AssignStaticTypeTest.dart

Index: tests/language/src/AssignStaticTypeTest.dart
diff --git a/tests/language/src/AssignStaticTypeTest.dart b/tests/language/src/AssignStaticTypeTest.dart
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..09358cc603adc5da5f92324af837ef8cbdba8db6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/language/src/AssignStaticTypeTest.dart
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+// Copyright (c) 2012, the Dart project authors.  Please see the AUTHORS file 
+// for details. All rights reserved. Use of this source code is governed by a 
+// BSD-style license that can be found in the LICENSE file. 
+
+// This test insures that statically initialized variables, fields, and parameters
+// report static type warnings.
+
+
+int a = "String";  /// 01: static type error

[gbracha, 2012/03/05 16:51:08]

Could we change all the comments 01 -06 in class A to say "static type warning"
instead of static type error? I'd like to firmly entrench the correct
terminology to avoid confusion.

[zundel, 2012/03/05 17:37:48]

I agree it has caused lots of confusion. I will make a CL to do this (which will
touch a lot of files)

+
+class A {
+  static final int c = "String"; /// 02: static type error
+  final int d = "String"; /// 03: static type error
+  int e = "String"; /// 04: static type error
+   A() {
+     int f = "String"; /// 05: static type error
+   }
+  method([
+     int  /// 06: static type error
+     g = "String"]) {
+    return g;
+  }
+}
+
+int main() {
+  var w = a; /// 01: continued
+  var x;
+  x = A.c;  /// 02: continued
+  var v = new A();
+  x = v.d;  /// 03: continued
+  x = v.e;  /// 04: continued
+      x = v.method(1); /// 06: continued
+}