[StdLib] Refactor ObjC code in Set validation tests #970
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 2 commits
January 19, 2016 21:20
Split the input file into a pure Swift and Objective-C interop files in anticipation of refactoring tests to remove XFAILs on Linux.
Move tests that need the Objective-C runtime into their own file and remove the XFAIL on Linux. This partially resolves SR-216.
|
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR is not ready for merging because it depends on input file refactoring, (which is in it's own PR -- #968). It is also included below so that the PR makes sense. As soon as that PR is merged, I will rebase this one on top of it.
Move tests that need the Objective-C runtime into their own file and remove the
XFAIL on Linux. This partially resolves SR-216.
Tested on Ubuntu 14.04 and OS X 10.10.
I ran into a little snag here. The type checker does not like to type check AnyObject in these files. The code works but is very sensitive. Unrelated code changes will cause type checking to fail. Unlike the Dictionary test refactoring in PR #969, I was able to get this to work without including unnecessary code in order to make the type checker happy.
I've opened SR 524 and SR 525 with minimized test cases for this behavior. Is this satisfactory?