dojo.get/setObject unit tests

[dante]

There don't appear to be any. Someone pointed out to me a possible issue with getObject/setObject and I am unaware of any history behind it. eg:

var foo = { a:1 };
dojo.setObject("foo.a.b.c", 42); // should create foo.a.b.c = 42

It cannot create the b or c member because a is an int.

Also getObject fails under the same conditions:

dojo.getObject("foo.a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h", true); // should create ...

throws with "invalid in operand" while doing a "x in obj" at a

small unit test attached for setObject/getObject showing the failures. Unsure if they are intended or if we need more sanity checking in _getProp

[James Burke]

My first thought is that it should fail: if a is an int, trying to create a "b" property on the int should fail, since it fails in plain javascript. Trying to do:

var a = 1; a.foo = "hello"; alert(a.foo);

does not return "hello" (at least in Firefox and Safari). Since the methods are get/setObject, it seems reasonable to assume you are dealing with a mutable object chain.

It would be good to get the other unit tests in the tree though.

[bill]

I agree, it should fail or the behavior should be undefined. We don't need special code to convert a from an int to an object. As a rule of thumb in dojo we don't deal with error cases like this as it bloats the code.

[dante]

agreed, just checking.

set/getObject is defined in _loader. my patch has these as a separate test. should I move them into _base/_loader/ tests or leave as-is (sans the intentionally failing tests?)

might at well do it before 1.3, right?

[dante]

[17079]