339091 - More JS strict warnings

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core Graveyard :: XForms, defect)

Description

[Allan Beaufour]

Warning: test for equality (==) mistyped as assignment (=)?
Source File: chrome://xforms/content/input-xhtml.xml
Line: 345, Column: 48
Source Code:
                while (child = walker.nextNode()) {

Warning: function getDaysCount does not always return a value
Source File: chrome://xforms/content/widgets.xml
Line: 244, Column: 7

Comment 1

[Allan Beaufour]

Attachment: Patch

I'm a bit unsure about the "return 0". We could throw an error or something? But we have no generic mechanism in place for that now, do we?

Comment 2

[Olli Pettay [:smaug][[e-mail]]]

Comment on attachment 223168 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch

IMO, it is ok to return 0.

Comment 3

[alexander :surkov (:asurkov)]

(In reply to comment #0)
> Warning: test for equality (==) mistyped as assignment (=)?
> Source File: chrome://xforms/content/input-xhtml.xml
> Line: 345, Column: 48
> Source Code:
>                 while (child = walker.nextNode()) {
> 

It's not bug. Probably we should do some changes in syntacsis to avoid that warning.

> Warning: function getDaysCount does not always return a value
> Source File: chrome://xforms/content/widgets.xml
> Line: 244, Column: 7
> 

As you said we can return 0. In any case it's not matter because the value of calendar is setted by using 'value' property and that property can't lead to error month values I guess.

Comment 4

[Allan Beaufour]

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > Warning: test for equality (==) mistyped as assignment (=)?
> > Source File: chrome://xforms/content/input-xhtml.xml
> > Line: 345, Column: 48
> > Source Code:
> >                 while (child = walker.nextNode()) {
> > 
> 
> It's not bug. Probably we should do some changes in syntacsis to avoid that
> warning.

That is what the patch does ;-)

Comment 5

[alexander :surkov (:asurkov)]

Comment on attachment 223168 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch


>           }
>+          // XXX: throw error?
>+          return 0;

I guess we don't need in XXX comment. We report about error by returning zero value.

Comment 6

[alexander :surkov (:asurkov)]

(In reply to comment #4)

> 
> That is what the patch does ;-)
> 

Yes :)), I didn't look at it. I like the patch excepting XXX comment.

Comment 7

[Allan Beaufour]

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> 
> > 
> > That is what the patch does ;-)
> > 
> 
> Yes :)), I didn't look at it. I like the patch excepting XXX comment.

:) Fixed on trunk.