Add language_2 tests demonstrating bug #30568

tests/language_2/additional_interface_adds_optional_args_test.dart

Index: tests/language_2/additional_interface_adds_optional_args_test.dart
diff --git a/tests/language_2/additional_interface_adds_optional_args_test.dart b/tests/language_2/additional_interface_adds_optional_args_test.dart
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c9953e597e236a7287a2981e3581dd219425f49
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/language_2/additional_interface_adds_optional_args_test.dart
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+// Copyright (c) 2017, the Dart project authors.  Please see the AUTHORS file
+// for details. All rights reserved. Use of this source code is governed by a
+// BSD-style license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
+
+// This test exercises a corner case of override checking that is safe from a
+// soundness perspective, but which we haven't decided whether or not to allow
+// from a usability perspective.
+
+class A {
+  void foo() {}
+}
+
+abstract class I {
+  void foo([x]);
+}
+
+abstract class B extends A implements I {
+  // If this class were concrete, there would be a problem, since `new
+  // B().foo(42)` would be statically allowed, but would lead to invalid
+  // arguments being passed to A.foo.  But since the class is abstract, there is
+  // no problem.
+}
+
+class C extends B {
+  void foo([x]) {
+    super.foo();

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, 2017/08/30 06:00:42]

Have tests that do `super.foo(x)` as well, and see that the are disallowed.

[Paul Berry, 2017/08/30 20:08:25]

Good call.  There are bugs related to this too.

Additional tests here: https://codereview.chromium.org/3005893002/

+  }
+}
+
+void f(B b) {
+  b.foo(42);
+}
+
+main() {
+  f(new C());
+}