Community
Participate
Working Groups
null
);
}
//https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=141931 may change this
// if we decide to mandate the @Override upon K<T>#foo
public void test004() { // all together
this.runNegativeTest(
new String[] {
"----------\n");
// check @Override annotation - strictly for superclasses (overrides) and not interfaces (implements)
//https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=141931 will change this by
// suppressing the last message (note also that the message label should change).
public void test077() {
"");
//https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=90484 - check no missing @Override warning
//https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=141931 will change this
// since X#clone() is override-compatible with Object#clone.
public void test126() {
//https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=94759
//https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=141931
// will probably change this (the new ref impl should
// add @Override capability to interfaces - so no error here)
public void test168() {
},
// still have to decide if we mandate the @Override when a class
// implements an interface method; however, the reference impl
// may (as of 20060516) consider tolerating it
public void _test200() {
this.runConformTest(
"I.java",
"public interface I {\n" +
" void foo();\n" +
"}\n",
"X.java",
"class X implements I {\n" +
" @Override\n" +
" public void foo() {}\n" +
* http://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=39467
* should diagnose missing abstract method implementation
*/
//https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=141931 will
// change this
// we should be tolerant to T#foo should bearing an @Override
// annotation since it implements I#foo; however, mandating it
// is probably too much...
public void test046() {
