Closed nhatminhle closed 9 years ago
From nhat.min...@gmail.com on April 30, 2013 02:48:35
Actually, r139 was wrongly packaged and did not ship with built-in contracts for Cofoja itself. The bug you've run into is one that was caught by the internal contracts of Cofoja, which have been reenabled as of r146 in the distribution downloads. Hence, it's not surprising that you didn't see it before, in r139 ; could you provide a source file where this is reproducible?
From nhat.min...@gmail.com on April 30, 2013 11:19:11
I think I've found the bug; can you try the following fixed JAR? http://www.huoc.org/~minh/cofoja/cofoja-1.1-20130430.jar Alternatively, you can compile the patched versions after applying the three patches in the same folder.
Status: Started
Owner: nhat.min...@gmail.com
From eric.faf...@gmail.com on May 02, 2013 06:12:28
Great! Everything works fine now. I tested with JDK 7 I have now warnings in the build log when contracts spécifications are empty. We can easily track them now. The Cofoja create all the contracts four our 3 projects (about 1500 classes) without any problem. At runtime contracts are checked without problems.
Thanks a lot for this fast and qualityfull fix.
From eric.faf...@gmail.com on April 29, 2013 00:34:34
What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Build of our project 2. 3. What is the expected output? What do you see instead? With version cofoja-1.0- r139 we had no problem on java se 1.6 now with cofoja-1.1- r146 on java se 1.7 we have a precondition violation of Cofoja when using the annotation processor
An annotation processor threw an uncaught exception. Consult the following stack trace for details. com.google.java.contract.PreconditionError: !code.isEmpty() at com.google.java.contract.core.apt.AnnotationSourceInfo..
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/cofoja/issues/detail?id=38