Tidy up error reporting for calling-constructor-as-function.

Tidy up error reporting for calling-constructor-as-function.

Introduce an ExceptionMessage helper for emitting the desired error
message when calling a constructor as a function & have the IDL compiler
generate calls to it.

At the same time, make 'detail' a required argument to all 'failedToXX'
methods on ExceptionMessage -- better if the caller is required to
supply meaningful info.

R=nbarth@chromium.org,haraken@chromium.org
BUG=

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=170037

[sof, 2014-03-26 05:12:49]

Please take a look.

[haraken, 2014-03-26 05:13:32]

LGTM

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2014-03-26 05:20:07]

Thanks for this Sigbjørn!
(Better to put in static bindings, instead of generated ones.)
I think we can clean up further, right?

https://codereview.chromium.org/211333004/diff/1/Source/bindings/v8/Exception...
File Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/211333004/diff/1/Source/bindings/v8/Exception...
Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h:49: static String failedToConstruct(const
String& type, const String& detail);
Can you eliminate failedToConstruct?
AFAICT I think it's only used for the errors you've replaced.

https://codereview.chromium.org/211333004/diff/1/Source/bindings/v8/Exception...
Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h:59: static String
constructorNotCallableAsFunction(const String& type);
Should we alphabetize these?

[sof, 2014-03-26 06:18:58]

https://codereview.chromium.org/211333004/diff/1/Source/bindings/v8/Exception...
File Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/211333004/diff/1/Source/bindings/v8/Exception...
Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h:49: static String failedToConstruct(const
String& type, const String& detail);
On 2014/03/26 05:20:08, Nils Barth wrote:
> Can you eliminate failedToConstruct?
> AFAICT I think it's only used for the errors you've replaced.

I don't think that's possible -- it's used in a number of places still (arity
checks, no matching overload.)

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2014-03-26 06:31:27]

Thanks for clarification, LGTM (with one nit).

https://codereview.chromium.org/211333004/diff/1/Source/bindings/v8/Exception...
File Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/211333004/diff/1/Source/bindings/v8/Exception...
Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.cpp:86: return "Failed to construct '" +
type + "': Please use the 'new' operator, this DOM object constructor cannot be
called as a function.";
Shouldn't this instead call failedToConstruct
with type and
"Please use the 'new' operator, this DOM object constructor cannot be called as
a function."
?

https://codereview.chromium.org/211333004/diff/1/Source/bindings/v8/Exception...
File Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/211333004/diff/1/Source/bindings/v8/Exception...
Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h:49: static String failedToConstruct(const
String& type, const String& detail);
On 2014/03/26 06:18:58, sof wrote:
> On 2014/03/26 05:20:08, Nils Barth wrote:
> > Can you eliminate failedToConstruct?
> > AFAICT I think it's only used for the errors you've replaced.
> 
> I don't think that's possible -- it's used in a number of places still (arity
> checks, no matching overload.)

Got it, you're right!
(Quick code search turned up the *first* match in files, which is the "not
callable as a function" error.)

[sof, 2014-03-26 07:37:39]

https://codereview.chromium.org/211333004/diff/1/Source/bindings/v8/Exception...
File Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/211333004/diff/1/Source/bindings/v8/Exception...
Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.cpp:86: return "Failed to construct '" +
type + "': Please use the 'new' operator, this DOM object constructor cannot be
called as a function.";
On 2014/03/26 06:31:27, Nils Barth wrote:
> Shouldn't this instead call failedToConstruct
> with type and
> "Please use the 'new' operator, this DOM object constructor cannot be called
as
> a function."
> ?

Yes, better that way. Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/211333004/diff/1/Source/bindings/v8/Exception...
File Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/211333004/diff/1/Source/bindings/v8/Exception...
Source/bindings/v8/ExceptionMessages.h:59: static String
constructorNotCallableAsFunction(const String& type);
On 2014/03/26 05:20:08, Nils Barth wrote:
> Should we alphabetize these?

Done.

[sof, 2014-03-26 07:37:46]

The CQ bit was checked by sigbjornf@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-26 07:37:52]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sigbjornf@opera.com/211333004/150001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-26 08:43:42]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-26 08:43:43]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  tryserver.blink on linux_blink_dbg

[sof, 2014-03-26 08:44:37]

The CQ bit was checked by sigbjornf@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-26 08:44:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sigbjornf@opera.com/211333004/150001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-26 09:43:44]

Change committed as 170037