February 2011 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Good reference on time on unit testing?

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Steven, Maybe we all should take some cold meds - you seem very coherent to me; get well soon. The only thing is that after settling on the shorter time to completion, you still spend a fraction of your programming effort/time to get the computer to test your work. It is that fraction that I am trying to quantify. Bill ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Steven Baker [steven(a)stevenrbaker.com] Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 3:04 PM To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Good reference on time on unit testing? I've always felt that "test driving" code actually results in negative time spent on "testing". I spend (and everyone I know that tests well does as well) a lot less time writing code test-first than I ever would writing the same code without the tests first. Also, I spend far less time (almost none) manually testing functionality. So TDD results in net negative time difference. (Apologize if I'm incoherent, the cold and flu drugs are strong in this one.) -Steven On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > > On 27.02.2011, at 13:58, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: > >> Norbert, >> >> Excellent points - I take exception with only one: you assume that all developers test - that is sadly not true. I am involved with a group who seem to think that a handful of tests added at the last minute will somehow magically fix their problems. >> > It seems I wasn't clear on this one. I'm trying to making a point that there is no distinction between "testing" - "no testing" but between "testing" - "writing tests". If you take compilation you test the code for syntax and language quirks. If a developer runs the program he develops than he is testing already. Testing and running a program is the same form that point of view. He takes input parameter and expects output parameter. That is testing. The point is just that developers do it manually and that is not reproducable. So there is no real difference between manual testing all the time and written test case. Only that repeating the testing procedure is boring and therefor supposed to be done by a machine. So if developers could see that the just need to put the work they already doing into a test will ease the work without changing much. They are just changing style and save time. That's it. Talking about 100% test coverage and holistic views about what the perfect testing could be doesn't help. > >> I have no problem arguing that testing (if done well) can/will reduce overall development time; the question is how much of that time one should expect to devote to writing and maintaining unit and acceptance tests? >> > I understand your intention but the view is inapropriate. Coding and testing aren't two things. It is something that belongs together (if you changed coding style). So that's why it is hard to estimate a time that should be spent. To me it is more comparabale to this: We all know collections are great. Imagine someone asking you "Can anyone recommend a good reference on the amount of time one should expect to spend writing code that uses collections?". What would you say? There is no answer. That doesn't mean you can't solve the problem. But you won't solving it by saying "It is 38.345 % of the time". If people don't get it you have to convince and/or teach them. I had several times where I could show the developer that he is gaining time from doing it. That works. Everything else is targeted towards excel manipulators. > > Norbert > > >> ________________________________________ >> From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Norbert Hartl [norbert(a)hartl.name] >> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 5:41 AM >> To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Good reference on time on unit testing? >> >> Hi, >> >> On 27.02.2011, at 04:52, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> Can anyone recommend a good reference on the amount of time one should expect to spend writing tests? I will have to be the messenger (will be wearing running shoes just in case...), but I want the message to come from a solid source. >> >> I find that really hard to answer. To me the problem is the question itself. I heard the "..amount of time one should expect to spend writing tests?" so often in companies and I think it was always exactly this phrase. While the question is valid it gives the impression there is something that decucts time from your "normal" development work. So the people that are asking this question are often managing people that have read something about code quality and they want to apply _this_ to their teams. >> The definition over time is troublesome, too. Testing is not easy. Everything you read about testing gives you the impression that everyone knows how to test and that those developers are just too lazy. And that is not true. Most developers I met had problems to see what testing is all about. The don't see interfaces as provable promises etc. So if you tell any of these developers they should spend 1 hour a day in testing than you will get tests that are counter-productive. My favorite example is the one where you have any composite object with an add method. Than the test goes like adding something via the interface and then try to access the internal array and check if it is of size 1. To me it is the same as with documentation. I prefer to have less documentation than useless documentation. >> >> So every developer is testing in some way. You either test and debug on the way in an unstructured form or you write tests. To me writing tests is not an add-on it is a change in working style. From this point of view I would state that the time I need to spend _additionally_ for testing is negative. I grew up with a print statement being the ultimate debugging tool. A print/debugging statement is added at the time of debugging and probably removed if the error seems to be fixed. That can lead to a situation where you do this multiple times. Writing the same as a test (and that forces you to produce more fine grained code) you will have a saving in time and a little assurance about regression. Regression debugging (debugging it again later) is much more time spent because you have to fix the error _and_ you need to focus again on that problem (which takes most of the time). So the point in writing tests is not to spend time but to save time. >> >> The amount of time one should expect to spend writing tests is less than the time you need to spend for testing otherwise. :) >> >> Norbert >> > > >

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Issue 2820 in pharo: Format Source shortcut key (cmd-r) doesn't work

by pharo＠googlecode.com

Comment #3 on issue 2820 by intrader.intrader: Format Source shortcut key (cmd-r) doesn't work http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=2820 Release testing is not up to snuff. It is very difficult to use tutorial as nobody bothers to update them to the 'newest' pharo or seaside. There should be a method of maintaining documentation, blogs, tutorials, etc. This is very tall order. Definitely, deprecated methods should say so until a point where they are archived. Take most any tutorial that is more than 2 years old, and it would not function or has problems. As to eclipse, it is free and I found a free ide for C# http://www.coderun.com/ide/

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Good reference on time on unit testing?

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Norbert, Have you ever read of shops where people throw code at features and never much bother to test what they are doing, because it is "testing's" job to catch the bugs ? I had read about it too... I understand what you are saying. Bill ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Norbert Hartl [norbert(a)hartl.name] Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 2:51 PM To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Good reference on time on unit testing? On 27.02.2011, at 13:58, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: > Norbert, > > Excellent points - I take exception with only one: you assume that all developers test - that is sadly not true. I am involved with a group who seem to think that a handful of tests added at the last minute will somehow magically fix their problems. > It seems I wasn't clear on this one. I'm trying to making a point that there is no distinction between "testing" - "no testing" but between "testing" - "writing tests". If you take compilation you test the code for syntax and language quirks. If a developer runs the program he develops than he is testing already. Testing and running a program is the same form that point of view. He takes input parameter and expects output parameter. That is testing. The point is just that developers do it manually and that is not reproducable. So there is no real difference between manual testing all the time and written test case. Only that repeating the testing procedure is boring and therefor supposed to be done by a machine. So if developers could see that the just need to put the work they already doing into a test will ease the work without changing much. They are just changing style and save time. That's it. Talking about 100% test coverage and holistic views about what the perfect testing could be doesn't help. > I have no problem arguing that testing (if done well) can/will reduce overall development time; the question is how much of that time one should expect to devote to writing and maintaining unit and acceptance tests? > I understand your intention but the view is inapropriate. Coding and testing aren't two things. It is something that belongs together (if you changed coding style). So that's why it is hard to estimate a time that should be spent. To me it is more comparabale to this: We all know collections are great. Imagine someone asking you "Can anyone recommend a good reference on the amount of time one should expect to spend writing code that uses collections?". What would you say? There is no answer. That doesn't mean you can't solve the problem. But you won't solving it by saying "It is 38.345 % of the time". If people don't get it you have to convince and/or teach them. I had several times where I could show the developer that he is gaining time from doing it. That works. Everything else is targeted towards excel manipulators. Norbert > ________________________________________ > From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Norbert Hartl [norbert(a)hartl.name] > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 5:41 AM > To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Good reference on time on unit testing? > > Hi, > > On 27.02.2011, at 04:52, Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> Can anyone recommend a good reference on the amount of time one should expect to spend writing tests? I will have to be the messenger (will be wearing running shoes just in case...), but I want the message to come from a solid source. > > I find that really hard to answer. To me the problem is the question itself. I heard the "..amount of time one should expect to spend writing tests?" so often in companies and I think it was always exactly this phrase. While the question is valid it gives the impression there is something that decucts time from your "normal" development work. So the people that are asking this question are often managing people that have read something about code quality and they want to apply _this_ to their teams. > The definition over time is troublesome, too. Testing is not easy. Everything you read about testing gives you the impression that everyone knows how to test and that those developers are just too lazy. And that is not true. Most developers I met had problems to see what testing is all about. The don't see interfaces as provable promises etc. So if you tell any of these developers they should spend 1 hour a day in testing than you will get tests that are counter-productive. My favorite example is the one where you have any composite object with an add method. Than the test goes like adding something via the interface and then try to access the internal array and check if it is of size 1. To me it is the same as with documentation. I prefer to have less documentation than useless documentation. > > So every developer is testing in some way. You either test and debug on the way in an unstructured form or you write tests. To me writing tests is not an add-on it is a change in working style. From this point of view I would state that the time I need to spend _additionally_ for testing is negative. I grew up with a print statement being the ultimate debugging tool. A print/debugging statement is added at the time of debugging and probably removed if the error seems to be fixed. That can lead to a situation where you do this multiple times. Writing the same as a test (and that forces you to produce more fine grained code) you will have a saving in time and a little assurance about regression. Regression debugging (debugging it again later) is much more time spent because you have to fix the error _and_ you need to focus again on that problem (which takes most of the time). So the point in writing tests is not to spend time but to save time. > > The amount of time one should expect to spend writing tests is less than the time you need to spend for testing otherwise. :) > > Norbert >

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] About 1.2

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I think that I fixed the issue with Shout. I'm trying to load Pharo configuration now :( Stef >> >> >> >> How can XML in 1.2 impacts 1.1 ??????? >> >> > It's not XML, there is another problem. > > Status: > => 1.2 now builds, without Mocketry. But that has been fixed in the meantime, so we can add it back. > (it seems removing is a far better way to get people to fix something than anything else. > I will do the same with the MethodWrapper package, you will see how quickly this gets fixed > *after* removing it, but never without removing it...) > > => 1.1 does not build. I don't know why. *first* release 1.2, *than* release 1.1.2... > > => From the test side of things, there are only two things left in 1.2 > -> MethodWrappers has test that fails 50% of the time. This will be solved by removing the package. > -> there are Obsoletes after running tests. here I think as this is only after running tests, we can defer > to 1.3 and remove the test for obsoletes in 1.2 > > > Besides that, there are a number of things that need to be done for 1.2, they are listed here: > > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/list?can=2&q=milestone=1.2-DevImage > > 1.2 can only be released if this list is empty. > > Marcus > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de > INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. >

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] [COTDC] 20 - Loader

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Feb 27, 2011, at 10:51 PM, Noury Bouraqadi wrote: > I collect some infos about package and system (versions, dirty). > I'm an abstract class. > currentChangedPackages instance method and currentMajorVersionNumber class are missing are provided by my wellknown subclass ScriptLoader. > > I wonder if some refactoring need to be done here... This is a class that was extracted from scriptLoader because I want to slowly get in place a loader infrastructure based on Metacello. But I got no time for that. Stef > > > On 27 fÃ©vr. 2011, at 20:35, laurent laffont wrote: > >> Today: Loader >> >> >> Comment Of The Day Contest - One Day One Comment >> Rules: >> #1: Each day a not commented class is elected. Each day the best comment will be integrated with name of the author(s). >> #2: If you cannot comment it, deprecate it. >> Results: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/CommentOfTheDayContest >> >> Laurent > > Noury Bouraqadi > http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury > -- > -6th National Conference on > âControl Architecture of Robotsâ > 24-25 may 2011, Grenoble area, France > http://car2011.inrialpes.fr/ > > -19th ESUG International Smalltalk Conference > 22-26 August 2011, Edinburgh, UK > http://www.esug.org/Conferences/2011 > > > > > >

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] [COTDC] 20 - Loader

by Noury Bouraqadi

I collect some infos about package and system (versions, dirty). I'm an abstract class. currentChangedPackages instance method and currentMajorVersionNumber class are missing are provided by my wellknown subclass ScriptLoader. I wonder if some refactoring need to be done here... On 27 fÃ©vr. 2011, at 20:35, laurent laffont wrote: > Today: Loader > > > Comment Of The Day Contest - One Day One Comment > Rules: > #1: Each day a not commented class is elected. Each day the best comment will be integrated with name of the author(s). > #2: If you cannot comment it, deprecate it. > Results: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/CommentOfTheDayContest > > Laurent Noury Bouraqadi http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury -- -6th National Conference on âControl Architecture of Robotsâ 24-25 may 2011, Grenoble area, France http://car2011.inrialpes.fr/ -19th ESUG International Smalltalk Conference 22-26 August 2011, Edinburgh, UK http://www.esug.org/Conferences/2011

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] comments comments comments again

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

So perfect now you have one excuse not to improve. take two minutes and have a look at the comments of configurationOfSOUP or configurationOfMana. This is the minimum that we can do. You load it and you know to load do X Stef > +99 > Exactly. The few times I needed class comments, the problem was exactly that one: which classes, which where the entry point. > > Now I guess class comments are useful when you're hacking/refactoring. > > > On 27/02/11 19:49, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 4:18 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse > <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr <mailto:stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>> wrote: > > Hi > > why can we put comment in class comment? > For example I worked on fixing 1.2 and now I want to execute the > configurationOfPharo and no magic invocation.... > JUST A FUCKING EMPTY class comment as usual. > > > So again I feel like an idiot and I'm trying in the dark. You have > NOT A SINGLE REASON NOT TO PUT COMMENT! > One of these days I will hack the system to break the load when a > class as no comment. > > > I was the original author of such class. And yes, I don't write class > comments. I am not use too, usually because: > > - I almost don't find it use > - The browser doesn't help me to see class comments > - Who can guess that under a '?' there are class comments? I discovered > that YEARS after I was already using Smalltalk > - I prefer writting/reading a TestCase for such class (I know it is not > the same as class comments, but it helps). > - I prefer looking at senders/references to such class > - When class comments are long, the browser is FUCKING slow to write > > Even more, in this case, what would you write for example? > ConfigurationOf* are just Metacello Configurations. What would you need > to know about that despite of Metacello? If you know Metacello, you > should know how to query the configuration and get all the things you > want, like groups, packages, etc > > > So now after randomly trying.....I get a nice DNU. > > > But do you think that could be fixed just because of having class comments? > > Apparently my time is not worth anything.... > > So if you want to see if my fix works. Give a try I will not and if > what I did break, may be I will have a look or may be not > because no time for that after. > > > And BTW do not put any comment, it feels much cooler that way. > > Stef > > > > >

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] comments comments comments again

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Feb 27, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Francois Stephany wrote: > I find it frustrating to load a package and to have no clue where to start. The user must scan the classes and guess which one are 'entry points'. Class comments does not help there. Because there are not good. Look at the one of ConfigurationOfMana plain bad but you can always load the configuration or the system when I'm building the configuration. > For a user perspective I would prefer to have a HelpSystem indicating where to start. Now I guess class comments are useful when you're hacking/refactoring. Not necessary. > > On 27/02/11 19:49, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 4:18 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse >> <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr <mailto:stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> why can we put comment in class comment? >> For example I worked on fixing 1.2 and now I want to execute the >> configurationOfPharo and no magic invocation.... >> JUST A FUCKING EMPTY class comment as usual. >> >> >> So again I feel like an idiot and I'm trying in the dark. You have >> NOT A SINGLE REASON NOT TO PUT COMMENT! >> One of these days I will hack the system to break the load when a >> class as no comment. >> >> >> I was the original author of such class. And yes, I don't write class >> comments. I am not use too, usually because: >> >> - I almost don't find it use >> - The browser doesn't help me to see class comments >> - Who can guess that under a '?' there are class comments? I discovered >> that YEARS after I was already using Smalltalk >> - I prefer writting/reading a TestCase for such class (I know it is not >> the same as class comments, but it helps). >> - I prefer looking at senders/references to such class >> - When class comments are long, the browser is FUCKING slow to write >> >> Even more, in this case, what would you write for example? >> ConfigurationOf* are just Metacello Configurations. What would you need >> to know about that despite of Metacello? If you know Metacello, you >> should know how to query the configuration and get all the things you >> want, like groups, packages, etc >> >> >> So now after randomly trying.....I get a nice DNU. >> >> >> But do you think that could be fixed just because of having class comments? >> >> Apparently my time is not worth anything.... >> >> So if you want to see if my fix works. Give a try I will not and if >> what I did break, may be I will have a look or may be not >> because no time for that after. >> >> >> And BTW do not put any comment, it feels much cooler that way. >> >> Stef >> >> >> >

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] comments comments comments again

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Feb 27, 2011, at 7:49 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 4:18 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > Hi > > why can we put comment in class comment? > For example I worked on fixing 1.2 and now I want to execute the configurationOfPharo and no magic invocation.... > JUST A FUCKING EMPTY class comment as usual. > > > So again I feel like an idiot and I'm trying in the dark. You have NOT A SINGLE REASON NOT TO PUT COMMENT! > One of these days I will hack the system to break the load when a class as no comment. > > > I was the original author of such class. And yes, I don't write class comments. I am not use too, usually because: > > - I almost don't find it use > - The browser doesn't help me to see class comments > - Who can guess that under a '?' there are class comments? I discovered that YEARS after I was already using Smalltalk > - I prefer writting/reading a TestCase for such class (I know it is not the same as class comments, but it helps). > - I prefer looking at senders/references to such class > - When class comments are long, the browser is FUCKING slow to write none of the above is a justification. " the minimal statement that should be in the comment: To load me, execute ((Smalltalk globals at: #ConfigurationOfPharo) project version: #stable) load " I added it I do not want to have to remember that in this project I should not use latest, whatever. In ten years from now I want to doubleclick and it loads. > Even more, in this case, what would you write for example? ConfigurationOf* are just Metacello Configurations. What would you need to know about that despite of Metacello? If you know Metacello, you should know how to query the configuration and get all the things you want, like groups, packages, etc sorry but there are plenty of expressions that can make the life of the maintainer easier. Just think 2 min and you will come with - how to validate - how to load core I do not want to have our book chapter open to load something. > So now after randomly trying.....I get a nice DNU. > > But do you think that could be fixed just because of having class comments? Yes I do that in all my configuration because I forgot all the time and my brain is better occupied on real problems not stuff that can be fixed by adding one comment. > Apparently my time is not worth anything.... > > So if you want to see if my fix works. Give a try I will not and if what I did break, may be I will have a look or may be not > because no time for that after. > > > And BTW do not put any comment, it feels much cooler that way. > > Stef > > >

Feb. 27, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] comments comments comments again

by Mariano Martinez Peck

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Francois Stephany < tulipe.moutarde(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I find it frustrating to load a package and to have no clue where to start. > The user must scan the classes and guess which one are 'entry points'. Class > comments does not help there. > > For a user perspective I would prefer to have a HelpSystem indicating where > to start. +99 Exactly. The few times I needed class comments, the problem was exactly that one: which classes, which where the entry point. > Now I guess class comments are useful when you're hacking/refactoring. > > > On 27/02/11 19:49, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 4:18 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse >> <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr <mailto:stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> why can we put comment in class comment? >> For example I worked on fixing 1.2 and now I want to execute the >> configurationOfPharo and no magic invocation.... >> JUST A FUCKING EMPTY class comment as usual. >> >> >> So again I feel like an idiot and I'm trying in the dark. You have >> NOT A SINGLE REASON NOT TO PUT COMMENT! >> One of these days I will hack the system to break the load when a >> class as no comment. >> >> >> I was the original author of such class. And yes, I don't write class >> comments. I am not use too, usually because: >> >> - I almost don't find it use >> - The browser doesn't help me to see class comments >> - Who can guess that under a '?' there are class comments? I discovered >> that YEARS after I was already using Smalltalk >> - I prefer writting/reading a TestCase for such class (I know it is not >> the same as class comments, but it helps). >> - I prefer looking at senders/references to such class >> - When class comments are long, the browser is FUCKING slow to write >> >> Even more, in this case, what would you write for example? >> ConfigurationOf* are just Metacello Configurations. What would you need >> to know about that despite of Metacello? If you know Metacello, you >> should know how to query the configuration and get all the things you >> want, like groups, packages, etc >> >> >> So now after randomly trying.....I get a nice DNU. >> >> >> But do you think that could be fixed just because of having class >> comments? >> >> Apparently my time is not worth anything.... >> >> So if you want to see if my fix works. Give a try I will not and if >> what I did break, may be I will have a look or may be not >> because no time for that after. >> >> >> And BTW do not put any comment, it feels much cooler that way. >> >> Stef >> >> >> >> >

Feb. 27, 2011