October 2009 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] About TestCase >> assert:

by Nicolas Cellier

However, would you really try to apply this kind of rule to the whole Smalltalk Kernel ? That would be interesting because these rules have a cost in - speed - readability of code - extensibility of code 1) Speed: every little method calls a little method, calls a little method ... At which level do you put the tests ? How many times is the same test applied thru the call chain ? 2) Readability: 3 lines of assertions for two lines of code is too much to my taste. Opinions may vary... 3) Extensibility of code: you'll have to care not to restrict future extensions too much. Pushed to the limits, this ressembles static typing (fortunately we shall use message isInteger rather than isKindOf: Integer). I think Smalltalk quality is based on a completly different plane Nicolas 2009/10/16 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: > Yes and this is really important because pre and post are valuable for > software engineering quality > promotion. > > Stef > > On Oct 16, 2009, at 1:55 AM, csrabak(a)bol.com.br wrote: > >> Em 15/10/2009 04:50, Â StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> >> escreveu: >> >> I see. Â Eiffel ideas cross breeding Pharo Smalltalk! >> >>> >>> Â Â The idea Â is that one day or Â later we will have Â to think about >>> Â Â the benefit Â of pre Â and post condition. Â So assert: Â in object >>> Â Â makes a lot of sense. >>> >>> Â Â Now Â indeed it Â would be Â good that Â all the Â tests Â use assert: >>> Â Â without block and use should: for that case. >>> >>> Â Â Stef On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:55 AM, csrabak(a)bol.com.br wrote: >>> >>>> I don't either, Â but I find strange the Â complete hierarchy of >>>> classes of Â Pharo having Â a method assert: Â available. Perhaps >>>> I'm blindfolded Â and Pharo and Â Squeak have found a Â wider use >>>> for assertions? >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

Oct. 16, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Sprint information

by Serge Stinckwich

2009/10/16 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: > Tell them a lot of great hellos from us :) > >> http://atnd.org/events/1593 > > and that pharo needs them :) No problem, i will pass the message. There is only one guy on the mailing-list with a .jp extension. Are you in the Nagoya area ? Best regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC), Hanoi, Vietnam Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] http://doesnotunderstand.org/

Oct. 16, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Sprint information

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Tell them a lot of great hellos from us :) > http://atnd.org/events/1593 and that pharo needs them :) Stef

Oct. 16, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] About TestCase >> assert:

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

> There are inconsistencies that bother me. > > * TestCase>>assert: in most Smalltalks accepts only a boolean. In > Pharo, > it accepts either a boolean or a block. This makes tests less > portable. +1 > * TestCase>>assert:equals: (a very useful method) does not accept a > block. Anyone used to giving blocks to #assert: would probably expect > this method to accept a block. +1 consistency is nice. > * Object assert: accepts a boolean or a block. I don't know of any > standard for this. me neither > * BlockClosure>>assert does not take any arguments, so I feel it is > very > clean. +1 > Proposed changes: (based on earlier discussion plus personal opinion) > > TestCase>>assert: should only accept a boolean. This brings > compatibility with other Smalltalks, and consistency with > TestCase>>assert:equals:. + 1 > Object>>assert: should be removed/deprecated in favor of > BlockClosure>>assert. This removes confusion with TestCase>>assert:. deprecation! > Object>>assert:description: and Object>>assert:descriptionBlock: > should > be removed/deprecated in favor of (new) > BlockClosure>>assertWithDescription:, which accepts either a block > or a > string. This provides convenient invariant and pre/post condition > testing. Let us do that. Any taker? Stef > > > Opinions? > > -Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Oct. 16, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] About TestCase >> assert:

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Hi martin I agree should: is not that communicating. I would favor [] assert [] assertWithDescription: 'funky preconditions' Stef On Oct 15, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Martin McClure wrote: > Henrik Johansen wrote: >> Why not rename Object>>assert: to should:, so it avoids breaking >> polymorphism, and keep TestCase>>assert: reserved for a boolean >> argument >> to stay compatible with SUnit in other dialects? >> >> On the negative side, it might not be as intuitive using should: for >> pre/post-assertions, as well as inconvenient to remember the >> difference >> between assert: and should: in TestCases. Not big enough negatives to >> outweigh the benefits though, imo. >> > > Henry, > > Sorry, I hadn't read this mail before making a proposal. > > I agree that renaming Object>>assert: to #should: would be an > improvement. But I still think it's probably better to remove it > altogether and send #assert to a block. It may just be me, but I've > always felt that as a selector 'should' doesn't really communicate the > intent as well as 'assert'. > > Regards, > > -Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Oct. 16, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] About TestCase >> assert:

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Yes and this is really important because pre and post are valuable for software engineering quality promotion. Stef On Oct 16, 2009, at 1:55 AM, csrabak(a)bol.com.br wrote: > Em 15/10/2009 04:50, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > escreveu: > > I see. Eiffel ideas cross breeding Pharo Smalltalk! > >> >> The idea is that one day or later we will have to think about >> the benefit of pre and post condition. So assert: in object >> makes a lot of sense. >> >> Now indeed it would be good that all the tests use assert: >> without block and use should: for that case. >> >> Stef On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:55 AM, csrabak(a)bol.com.br wrote: >> >>> I don't either, but I find strange the complete hierarchy of >>> classes of Pharo having a method assert: available. Perhaps >>> I'm blindfolded and Pharo and Squeak have found a wider use >>> for assertions? >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Oct. 16, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Google code / test running

by Michael Roberts

sounds good i will check it out Mike On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Torsten Bergmann <astares(a)gmx.de> wrote: > The SqueakSVN pages moved to: > http://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/hirschfeld/projects/ssvn/index.html > > Maybe it is of use to automate the SVN tasks ... > > Bye > T. > -- > Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3.5 - > sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

Oct. 16, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Sprint information

by Serge Stinckwich

I could not attend unfortunately. Enjoy the Pharo sprint ! I will present the Pharo project to the Nagoya Smalltalkers meeting in december : http://atnd.org/events/1593 Best regards, 2009/10/15 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: > Hi guys > > Here are some information about the sprint. > > The place is located at LIFL in a room close to our office. > Â Â Â Â http://rmod.lille.inria.fr > Â Â Â Â check at the bottom of the page (pay attention our physical address > is not the same than our mail address. > Â Â Â Â We are NOT in the INRIA building. > > In short you should take the metro up to Cite Scientifique and walk > south until the round point and turn right after a moment > you should have a parking on your left and the building is doing a > kind of large L > > The entrance in the building is at the crossing of the L. > > Now the building will be closed on saturday and I can open the door. > I plan to be at the lab at 9h00. > > Now I do not have a mobile phone... so it would be good that we share > mobile numbers so that > we have a base for connecting us. > The idea is that we will write on a sheet of paper the mobile phone > number of the first one that will arrive. > > Stef > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Serge Stinckwich UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC), Hanoi, Vietnam Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] http://doesnotunderstand.org/

Oct. 16, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] About TestCase >> assert:

by Mariano Martinez Peck

I like the ability I have to generate big and interesting threads from a little question hahaha. On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:55 PM, <csrabak(a)bol.com.br> wrote: > Em 15/10/2009 04:50, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > escreveu: > > I see. Eiffel ideas cross breeding Pharo Smalltalk! > > > > > The idea is that one day or later we will have to think about > > the benefit of pre and post condition. So assert: in object > > makes a lot of sense. > > > > Now indeed it would be good that all the tests use assert: > > without block and use should: for that case. > > > > Stef On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:55 AM, csrabak(a)bol.com.br wrote: > > > > > I don't either, but I find strange the complete hierarchy of > > > classes of Pharo having a method assert: available. Perhaps > > > I'm blindfolded and Pharo and Squeak have found a wider use > > > for assertions? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

Oct. 16, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] About TestCase >> assert:

by csrabak＠bol.com.br

Em 15/10/2009 04:50, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> escreveu: I see. Eiffel ideas cross breeding Pharo Smalltalk! > > The idea is that one day or later we will have to think about > the benefit of pre and post condition. So assert: in object > makes a lot of sense. > > Now indeed it would be good that all the tests use assert: > without block and use should: for that case. > > Stef On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:55 AM, csrabak(a)bol.com.br wrote: > > > I don't either, but I find strange the complete hierarchy of > > classes of Pharo having a method assert: available. Perhaps > > I'm blindfolded and Pharo and Squeak have found a wider use > > for assertions? >

Oct. 15, 2009