Closed soywiz closed 7 years ago
Will try to have a look at this today/tomorrow :) What's wrong with appveyor btw? I can have a look into it, cause a failing build is ugly :)
Merging #264 into master will increase coverage by
0.03%
. The diff coverage is65.95%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #264 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 17.85% 17.89% +0.03%
Complexity 388 388
============================================
Files 313 312 -1
Lines 20773 20765 -8
Branches 4502 4502
============================================
+ Hits 3710 3715 +5
+ Misses 16388 16374 -14
- Partials 675 676 +1
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | Complexity Δ | |
---|---|---|---|
.../com/jtransc/ast/treeshaking/TemplateReferences.kt | 0% <ø> (ø) |
0 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
...e/src/com/jtransc/ast/template/CommonTagHandler.kt | 0% <0%> (ø) |
0 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
.../src/com/jtransc/io/JTranscConsolePrintStream.java | 0% <0%> (ø) |
0 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
...sc-gen-haxe/src/com/jtransc/gen/haxe/HaxeTarget.kt | 79.52% <100%> (+0.15%) |
11 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
...ransc-gen-cpp/src/com/jtransc/gen/cpp/CppTarget.kt | 82.03% <93.1%> (-0.37%) |
4 <0> (ø) |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4670454...bb9774b. Read the comment docs.
Merging #264 into master will increase coverage by
0.03%
. The diff coverage is33.5%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #264 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 17.85% 17.89% +0.03%
Complexity 388 388
============================================
Files 313 312 -1
Lines 20773 20749 -24
Branches 4502 4495 -7
============================================
+ Hits 3710 3713 +3
+ Misses 16388 16360 -28
- Partials 675 676 +1
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | Complexity Δ | |
---|---|---|---|
.../com/jtransc/ast/treeshaking/TemplateReferences.kt | 0% <ø> (ø) |
0 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
...ransc-gen-as3/src/com/jtransc/gen/as3/As3Target.kt | 0% <ø> (ø) |
0 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
...ransc-gen-php/src/com/jtransc/gen/php/PhpTarget.kt | 0% <ø> (ø) |
0 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
jtransc-gen-js/src/com/jtransc/gen/js/JsTarget.kt | 87.36% <ø> (-0.41%) |
4 <0> (ø) |
|
...core/src/com/jtransc/gen/common/CommonGenerator.kt | 0% <0%> (ø) |
0 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
...ansc-gen-cs/src/com/jtransc/gen/cs/CSharpTarget.kt | 0% <0%> (ø) |
0 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
...e/src/com/jtransc/ast/template/CommonTagHandler.kt | 0% <0%> (ø) |
0 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
.../src/com/jtransc/io/JTranscConsolePrintStream.java | 0% <0%> (ø) |
0 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
...e/src/com/jtransc/plugin/enum/EnumJTranscPlugin.kt | 0% <0%> (ø) |
0 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
jtransc-core/src/com/jtransc/ast/ast.kt | 3.19% <0%> (+0.01%) |
0 <0> (ø) |
:arrow_down: |
... and 6 more |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4670454...f6c97ab. Read the comment docs.
@intrigus it seems that cinst
the chocolatey package manager for windows https://chocolatey.org/ fails installing haxe. But it is not a persistent issue. Maybe they have connection issues or something broke. Now it seems to be working. But maybe again it is temporal. Maybe we should try to cache chocolatey packages to minimize connection issues?
At any rate, I have created this repo: https://github.com/jtransc/jtransc-ci-experiments for doing experiments without having to create PRs. If you want to do experiments related to that, and once you have a good change, you can make a PR here.
In later commits I have implemented haxe synchronized methods. So now Haxe is on par with other targets. I implemented it with a try..catch
surrounding the whole body + intercepting all return points, so I am not required to create additional methods.
I have also improved Thread API, simplifying it and supporting some other methods like join
, or partial support for ThreadGroup
.
@intrigus I have noticed that pure C++ target crashes when other threads are created. After some experiments, the culprit seems to be the GC. Not fixed (though uploaded some comments with the direction I tried, but not sure if it is compatible with C++11 threads; an investigation is required for this), just ignored thread test in C++ target explaining the reason.
Fixed #242 (support synchronized blocks & synchronized methods)