Last time I looked at whitelisting non-fatal assertions, there was only the option to accept up-to a number of assertions. Have I missed something? Because a blank check to sweep assertions under the carpet is really an awful mechanism.
Now, I fully agree that warnings that are not whitelisted should most likely cause real assertion failures. Cheers, David On 08/06/15 19:09, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2015-06-05 6:08 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: >> This API covers all the needs I have encountered for warnings so far in >> JS code. I don't think it's terribly different in C++ code. > > For C++ non-fatal assertions, we already have a mechanism similar to > this (but it doesn't rely on the exact message printed in the warning, > of course.) > > I prefer to not try to do what you are doing for C++ warnings, because > if there are ones that we should really not trigger in a test, those > should be promoted to be assertions, and then we would be able to rely > on the existing mechanisms to catch them during test runs. > > Cheers, > Ehsan > -- David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD Performance Team, Mozilla _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
