[Checkers] Testing Approach Proposal

[Mahmood Ali]

> Just to follow up, I think we agreed that the first proposal is  
> worthwhile.
> [...] a version of the first proposal that put the
> type in a comment to reduce the potential for error, might be nice  
> to have,
>

Unfortunately, last Friday, I spent a couple of hours implementing  
this proposal.  In the end, parsing the annotations from an expected  
file was just as complex as reading it directly from the java source  
file directly.  So I ended up implementing the variation.  The  
documentation of how to use the tester is found in  
checkers.util.test.FactoryTestChecker file.

> but aren't really worth doing based on all the other things that are  
> on our
> critical path.

I have two critical items in my agenda now:
1. Make the IGJ demo for Mike.  I will work on this tomorrow afternoon.
2. Prepare the Annotated (method signitures only) JDK for Matt.  It is  
available now on ~mali/research/jdk/nonnull.  Unfortunately, it  
doesn't type check currently under the nonnull checker.  I suspect  
that the bug is in TypesRelations, but I will need to investigate it  
more later.  The issued warnings are all due to override related issue  
(66 for receiver incompatible type!).

I have a mid-term tomorrow morning.  I will work on these two issues  
after that.

- Mahmood