Sergej Jaskiewicz
6e8283a6fe
The reason #1 for this feature is that we want to test IdSignatures generated for declarations. Currently, there is no (easy) way to ensure that a change in the signature building logic doesn't cause any breaking changes wrt klibs. Now, most IdSignatures include hashed mangled names in them, so even if we catch a regression where the included hash changes, there would be no way of knowing immediately what caused it, unless we'd also have mangled names in the expectations. The reason #2 is to test the manglers themselves. Currently, there are no tests for them. They heavily duplicate each other, this is already causing issues (see KT-57427) that would be very hard to catch without these tests. ^KT-58238 Fixed
35 lines
539 B
Kotlin
Vendored
35 lines
539 B
Kotlin
Vendored
// FIR_IDENTICAL
|
|
// TARGET_BACKEND: JVM
|
|
// WITH_JDK
|
|
|
|
// FILE: samConversions.kt
|
|
fun J.test0(a: Runnable) {
|
|
J.runStatic(a)
|
|
runIt(a)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
fun test1() {
|
|
J.runStatic { test1() }
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
fun J.test2() {
|
|
runIt { test1() }
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
fun J.test3(a: () -> Unit) {
|
|
run2(a, a)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
fun J.test4(a: () -> Unit, b: () -> Unit, flag: Boolean) {
|
|
runIt(if (flag) a else b)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// FILE: J.java
|
|
public class J {
|
|
public static void runStatic(Runnable r) {}
|
|
|
|
public void runIt(Runnable r) {}
|
|
|
|
public void run2(Runnable r1, Runnable r2) {}
|
|
}
|