Added tests to previously broken functionality and added null checks.

tools/dom/scripts/htmldartgenerator.py

Index: tools/dom/scripts/htmldartgenerator.py
diff --git a/tools/dom/scripts/htmldartgenerator.py b/tools/dom/scripts/htmldartgenerator.py
index 0dc105415817ab79c08e15ece11bbb821d4f9215..6428e64bcf692d0992b49f8d555286d056317b13 100644
--- a/tools/dom/scripts/htmldartgenerator.py
+++ b/tools/dom/scripts/htmldartgenerator.py
@@ -234,17 +234,31 @@ class HtmlDartGenerator(object):
       generate_call(stmts_emitter, call_emitter,
           version[0], signature_index, argument_count)
 
+    def IsDartTypeNullable(type_signature):
+      return type_signature not in ['int', 'double', 'num', 'bool']
+
     def GenerateChecksAndCall(signature_index, argument_count):
       checks = []
       for i in range(0, argument_count):
         argument = signatures[signature_index][i]
         parameter_name = parameter_names[i]
         test_type = self._DartType(argument.type.id)
+        nullable = argument.type.nullable
+
         if test_type in ['dynamic', 'Object']:
           checks.append('?%s' % parameter_name)
         elif not can_omit_type_check(test_type, i):
+          nullable = True
           checks.append('(%s is %s || %s == null)' % (
               parameter_name, test_type, parameter_name))
+
+        if not nullable and not IsDartTypeNullable(test_type):
+          for signature in signatures:
+            if (len(signature) <= i or signature[i].id not in parameter_name):

[Anton Muhin, 2013/05/22 12:27:33]

in parameter_name or == parameter_name?

[Andrei Mouravski, 2013/05/22 12:37:42]

This is to handle the case of merged types.

On 2013/05/22 12:27:33, Anton Muhin wrote:

[Anton Muhin, 2013/05/22 12:50:56]

I am really concerned with the cases like (hypothetic):

foo(a)
foo(data)

On 2013/05/22 12:37:42, Andrei Mouravski wrote:

[Andrei Mouravski, 2013/05/22 14:40:10]

Agreed. I'll run a regex instead or else split on _OR_

On 2013/05/22 12:50:56, Anton Muhin wrote:

[Andrei Mouravski, 2013/05/23 09:53:27]

Done.

+
+              checks.append('%s != null' % parameter_name)

[Anton Muhin, 2013/05/22 12:27:33]

still, I do not understand why this check is needed.

[Andrei Mouravski, 2013/05/22 12:37:42]

Because other logic does some dumb things and if this isnt here then the
"incorrect arguments error" is never thrown.

On 2013/05/22 12:27:33, Anton Muhin wrote:

[Anton Muhin, 2013/05/22 12:50:56]

May you, please, provide an exact example: which case of overloading this logic
resolves?

Just to elaborate, it looks like logic under this if actually belongs to block
at ln. 249 of the current snapshot.

On 2013/05/22 12:37:42, Andrei Mouravski wrote:

[Andrei Mouravski, 2013/05/22 14:40:10]

Please take a look at the tests added in this CL. You can even prove it to
yourself by patching in JUST the tests and watching them fail.

The location of this code is not great, but this whole method is a little wonky.
I will try to redactor today.

On 2013/05/22 12:50:56, Anton Muhin wrote:

+              break
+
       # There can be multiple presence checks.  We need them all since a later
       # optional argument could have been passed by name, leaving 'holes'.
       checks.extend(['!?%s' % name for name in parameter_names[argument_count:]])