[Pharo-project] [Fix of the day contest] 4/7/2012 with extras

Chris Muller asqueaker at gmail.com
Wed Jul 4 15:49:06 EDT 2012


No one uses it but maybe a good idea to consider -- it seems like a
good place for things like license, copyright, about text..


On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker at inria.fr> wrote:
>
> On Jul 4, 2012, at 9:25 PM, Guillermo Polito wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I've done a little fix today that allows monticello tests to run -green btw- :). http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=6273
>> So, I expect this will put us 11 tests closer to a green build.
>>
>>
>> This was a problem related with the monticello-mocks and monticellomocks packages.
>> There are problems still remaining, like, as giving an example:
>>
>> - MCMock is categorized Monticello-Mocks, but is in the Monticello RPackage...
>>
>> That happens with all the classes in the Monticello-Mocks category.  The root of the problem is that we have some strange objects installed as packages (PackageInfo registrations).  Have a look at the result of:
>>
>
> The problem is that the MC tests use a featuer of MC that nobody uses: subclasses of PackageInfo to be able to make packages out of code that
> is actually not following the convention.
>
> See MCMockPackageInfo
>
> it's pacakgeName is "MonticelloMocks", but the idea was originally to never save that package, I think.
>
>
> --
> Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
>
>




More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list