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
53 lines
680 B
Kotlin
Vendored
53 lines
680 B
Kotlin
Vendored
// IGNORE_BACKEND: JS_IR
|
|
// IGNORE_BACKEND: JS_IR_ES6
|
|
|
|
// MUTE_SIGNATURE_COMPARISON_K2: ANY
|
|
// ^ KT-57775, KT-57777
|
|
|
|
enum class TestFinalEnum1 {
|
|
X1
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
enum class TestFinalEnum2(val x: Int) {
|
|
X1(1)
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
enum class TestFinalEnum3 {
|
|
X1
|
|
;
|
|
|
|
fun doStuff() {}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
enum class TestOpenEnum1 {
|
|
X1 {
|
|
override fun toString() = "X1"
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
enum class TestOpenEnum2 {
|
|
X1 {
|
|
override fun foo() {}
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
open fun foo() {}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
enum class TestAbstractEnum1 {
|
|
X1 {
|
|
override fun foo() {}
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
abstract fun foo()
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
interface IFoo {
|
|
fun foo()
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
enum class TestAbstractEnum2 : IFoo {
|
|
X1 {
|
|
override fun foo() {}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|