DateItem Issue in 8.2p

[yavery]

Hi,

In my effort to migrate from 8.0 to 8.2p (2011-01-16), I found the DateItem component
has a syntax error in its definition @ line #1714 - #1717 ...

There's a dangling/redundant comma in that module's definition.

    _shouldAllowExpressions : function () {
        if (this.useTextField) {
            return this.Super("_shouldAllowExpressions", arguments);
        } else {
            return false;
        }
    },

    //>EditMode dynamically changing useTextField
    , 
    propertyChanged : function (propertyName) {
        if (propertyName == "useTextField" ||
            propertyName == "useMask") this.setItems();
    }
    //<EditMode

Has this been reported/fixed in a subsequent build of 8.2p ? If not, can someone please look into it ?

Thanks,

[Isomorphic]

Thanks for the report, it's been addressed in both 8.2p and 8.3d and the change will appear in nightlies from tomorrow.

[yavery]

Still experiencing the issue with 8.2p LGPL build labeled
Version SC_SNAPSHOT-2012-01-20_v8.2p (2012-01-20).

See attachment ...

When I run our application using the OBFUSCATED version
of the SmartClient framework, everything is working fine (no problem).

I get the problem when I run our application using the DEBUG
packaged version of the SmartClient framework which gets
assembled using the non-obfuscated version of the DateItem.js
file which comes from the following location :

SmartClient_SC_SNAPSHOT-2012-01-20_v82p_LGPL.zip ->
smartclientSDK ->
source ->
client ->
widgets ->
form ->
DateItem.js

Maybe that non-obfuscated version of the file didn't get fixed ? Or
was I too quick to grab today's nightly build ?

Please let me know. Thanks!

[yavery]

The simple fact that the obfuscated version has a syntax error and not the non-obfuscated one raises a question
in my mind ...

Isn't the obfuscated code generated from the non-obfuscated one ? Please shed some lights to re-assure me on this ...

What guarantees do I have that the general behavior of the framework between the obfuscated and
non-obfuscated versions is the same ?

Thanks for clarifying,

[Isomorphic]

Yes, the obfuscated version is generated from the source version. The process of obfuscation also performs some source code transform for optimization reasons, and this transform can eliminate JS syntax errors present in the original source - that's what you're seeing here. Outside of this, unless we manage to code certain very unusual kinds of bugs, the behavior is the same.

[Isomorphic]

And for completeness: we'll get that syntax error fixed right away, manually correcting it will allow you to proceed in the meantime.

[yavery]

Great. Thanks!

So please advise as to which build version (date) I should use to get this fix as I thought
it was already fixed last time, as per your previous forum post.

Thanks,

[Isomorphic]

It's not the same syntax error. We should have the second one fixed over the weekend at the latest.

[Isomorphic]

Actually, it *is* the same issue and it's already been fixed - the build you downloaded was already underway when the fix was checked in, so please retest with a newer one (today's, for instance).

[yavery]

All good. Thanks!