Add SourceFileEdit.time field.

Add SourceFileEdit.time field.

R=brianwilkerson@google.com, paulberry@google.com
BUG=

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=40329

[Paul Berry, 2014-09-15 22:36:05]

lgtm

[Brian Wilkerson, 2014-09-15 23:28:46]

https://codereview.chromium.org/574573002/diff/1/pkg/analysis_server/tool/spe...
File pkg/analysis_server/tool/spec/spec_input.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/574573002/diff/1/pkg/analysis_server/tool/spe...
pkg/analysis_server/tool/spec/spec_input.html:2883: <field name="time">
I don't think this does what we need it to. I think the goal is to allow clients
to know when a file has changed since the edit was created in order to know when
it might not be safe to apply the edit. The problem is that the time stamps on
files are not monotonically increasing. Certain operations can change the time
stamp to be less than the previous value. The only safe way to test for
"changed" is to use a not-equal comparison. Therefore, I think the time stamp
included in the API needs to be the time stamp of the file at the time it was
last analyzed, not the time at which the change was created.

Also, this doesn't describe the convention we discussed of using a special value
(like -1) to indicate a file that is expected to not exist.

[scheglov, 2014-09-16 00:57:26]

PTAL

https://codereview.chromium.org/574573002/diff/1/pkg/analysis_server/tool/spe...
File pkg/analysis_server/tool/spec/spec_input.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/574573002/diff/1/pkg/analysis_server/tool/spe...
pkg/analysis_server/tool/spec/spec_input.html:2883: <field name="time">
On 2014/09/15 23:28:46, Brian Wilkerson wrote:
> I don't think this does what we need it to. I think the goal is to allow
clients
> to know when a file has changed since the edit was created in order to know
when
> it might not be safe to apply the edit. The problem is that the time stamps on
> files are not monotonically increasing. Certain operations can change the time
> stamp to be less than the previous value. The only safe way to test for
> "changed" is to use a not-equal comparison. Therefore, I think the time stamp
> included in the API needs to be the time stamp of the file at the time it was
> last analyzed, not the time at which the change was created.
> 
> Also, this doesn't describe the convention we discussed of using a special
value
> (like -1) to indicate a file that is expected to not exist.

Agree.

[Brian Wilkerson, 2014-09-16 13:51:32]

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/574573002/diff/20001/pkg/analysis_server/tool...
File pkg/analysis_server/tool/spec/codegen_java_types.dart (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/574573002/diff/20001/pkg/analysis_server/tool...
pkg/analysis_server/tool/spec/codegen_java_types.dart:601: return 'getAsLong';
I didn't realize the JSON made a distinction. Should we just use getAsLong
everywhere that we're getting an integer value, or is there a difference in the
format of the value?

https://codereview.chromium.org/574573002/diff/20001/pkg/analysis_server/tool...
File pkg/analysis_server/tool/spec/spec_input.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/574573002/diff/20001/pkg/analysis_server/tool...
pkg/analysis_server/tool/spec/spec_input.html:2887: was created, in milliseconds
since the "Unix epoch". Maybe -1 if
"Maybe" --> "Will be"

[scheglov, 2014-09-16 17:18:35]

https://codereview.chromium.org/574573002/diff/20001/pkg/analysis_server/tool...
File pkg/analysis_server/tool/spec/codegen_java_types.dart (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/574573002/diff/20001/pkg/analysis_server/tool...
pkg/analysis_server/tool/spec/codegen_java_types.dart:601: return 'getAsLong';
On 2014/09/16 13:51:32, Brian Wilkerson wrote:
> I didn't realize the JSON made a distinction. Should we just use getAsLong
> everywhere that we're getting an integer value, or is there a difference in
the
> format of the value?

Timestamp is too long to fit into Java int.
OTOH, for all the other fields 32-bit integer is enough, so I'd not like to make
all the Java APIs to use "long".

https://codereview.chromium.org/574573002/diff/20001/pkg/analysis_server/tool...
File pkg/analysis_server/tool/spec/spec_input.html (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/574573002/diff/20001/pkg/analysis_server/tool...
pkg/analysis_server/tool/spec/spec_input.html:2887: was created, in milliseconds
since the "Unix epoch". Maybe -1 if
On 2014/09/16 13:51:32, Brian Wilkerson wrote:
> "Maybe" --> "Will be"

Done.

[scheglov, 2014-09-16 17:19:51]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001) manually as 40329 (presubmit successful).