RESOLVED FIXED 95354
run-bindings-tests failing on Apple Mountain Lion Testers
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95354
Summary run-bindings-tests failing on Apple Mountain Lion Testers
Jessie Berlin
Reported 2012-08-29 09:44:11 PDT
http://build.webkit.org/builders/Apple%20MountainLion%20Debug%20WK1%20%28Tests%29/builds/316/steps/bindings-generation-tests/logs/stdio One example failure: FAIL: (ObjC) DOMTestActiveDOMObject.h --- WebCore/bindings/scripts/test/ObjC/DOMTestActiveDOMObject.h 2012-08-19 00:12:14.000000000 -0700 +++ /var/folders/rg/3xbzr5_x083c8kzwn20v95nm0000gn/T/tmpQeyWTd/DOMTestActiveDOMObject.h 2012-08-29 08:24:34.000000000 -0700 @@ -32,7 +32,8 @@ @class NSString; @interface DOMTestActiveDOMObject : DOMObject -- (int)excitingAttr; +@property(readonly) int excitingAttr; + - (void)excitingFunction:(DOMNode *)nextChild; - (void)postMessage:(NSString *)message; @end The binding tests are expecting incorrect results on Mac. The versions using the @property syntax are correct for Leopard and above. CodeGeneratorObjC.pm determines which syntax to use based on the value of MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET. That particular bot has MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.8 set in the environment (not sure why), while other invocations of the bindings generation tests must have it unset. The actual bindings generation that is performed for our use as API does have MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET set correctly as it's invoked from within the context of xcodebuild. We should remove the code in CodeGeneratorObjC.pm that deals with the old pre-@property syntax, since it is only used on Tiger and earlier, and fix the expected results. <rdar://problem/12147126>
Attachments
Patch (20.02 KB, patch)
2012-08-29 12:08 PDT, Jessie Berlin
no flags
Eric Seidel (no email)
Comment 1 2012-08-29 10:06:04 PDT
Sounds like an excellent plan.
Jessie Berlin
Comment 2 2012-08-29 12:08:50 PDT
Eric Seidel (no email)
Comment 3 2012-08-29 12:11:08 PDT
Comment on attachment 161280 [details] Patch LGTM. You might want tim or someone else from apple to review though.
Jessie Berlin
Comment 4 2012-08-29 12:46:27 PDT
(In reply to comment #3) > (From update of attachment 161280 [details]) > LGTM. You might want tim or someone else from apple to review though. Thanks! Tim said it looks good.
Jessie Berlin
Comment 5 2012-08-29 12:58:09 PDT
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.