Hi all Last week I did these tasks: - Expose variable refactoring commands in source context ( https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/8472) - Improve messages of push up method refactoring, also add the option to push up referenced instance variables ( https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/8531) - Introduce a new way to move the method to class side refactoring ( https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/8532) - Add rename package refactoring ( https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/8533) Tasks for this week: - Improve extract setUp refactoring. - Fix previews of extract method with arguments ( https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/5855). - Improve renaming method refactoring, to only rename senders in specific packages (https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/8513) - Fix move to component issue ( https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/8499) Cheers, Evelyn

Wonderful to have progress on this important topic - thank you! Sorry I haven't been following closely (maybe you addressed it already), but pushing up instance variables has a dangerous limitation - instances lose any data held in that var. I guess it's because it's deleted from the subclass prior to adding to the superclass to avoid duplicating. One solution would be to add a var to the superclass with a mangled name, copy the data for all instances, remove the var from the subclass, and then rename the mangled var. ----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html

I never thought of that implication - if ivars are proper objects (is that now applied?) would this issue go away (an ivar would just get a new parent)? This is a very interesting problem, as its a type of transaction, and I never though of it that way - its easy to think of it as just dumb code - but in effect it isn’t. Tim On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, at 4:30 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > Wonderful to have progress on this important topic - thank you! > > Sorry I haven't been following closely (maybe you addressed it already), but > pushing up instance variables has a dangerous limitation - instances lose > any data held in that var. I guess it's because it's deleted from the > subclass prior to adding to the superclass to avoid duplicating. One > solution would be to add a var to the superclass with a mangled name, copy > the data for all instances, remove the var from the subclass, and then > rename the mangled var. > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html >

Hi Tim, you may want to have a look at Preserving Instance State during Refactorings in Live Environments https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02541754/document G > El 13 feb 2021, a las 9:46, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> escribió: > > I never thought of that implication - if ivars are proper objects (is that now applied?) would this issue go away (an ivar would just get a new parent)? > > This is a very interesting problem, as its a type of transaction, and I never though of it that way - its easy to think of it as just dumb code - but in effect it isn’t. > > Tim > > On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, at 4:30 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: >> Wonderful to have progress on this important topic - thank you! >> >> Sorry I haven't been following closely (maybe you addressed it already), but >> pushing up instance variables has a dangerous limitation - instances lose >> any data held in that var. I guess it's because it's deleted from the >> subclass prior to adding to the superclass to avoid duplicating. One >> solution would be to add a var to the superclass with a mangled name, copy >> the data for all instances, remove the var from the subclass, and then >> rename the mangled var. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Cheers, >> Sean >> -- >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html >>