December 2013 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Grease conflicts #packages with RPackage

by Esteban Lorenzano

sorry, but I still do not understand why this is a problem. can you elaborate why it should not be more implementations? Esteban On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Stephan Eggermont <stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote: > I could copy the separate packages, but not the slice. > > Please note that the added test is expected to fail on all builds > containing Grease-Core. > > Stephan > > >

Dec. 4, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Unifying Testing Ideas

by Frank Shearar

On 4 December 2013 11:34, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > The reason for my initial hesitation was that... in rspec, it is easy to > stub out global class objects and... I don't think this is the right > solution for the problem. > > > Ha ha, you were right to be cautious. I've been thinking for offer a year > about how to do that without method wrappers. But I will control myself in > your project ;) It's still a work in progress, but Squeak's Environments ought to provide this: your test runs in a custom, temporary Environment into which you import your own DateAndTime or FileReference or whatever. Code inside the Environment just calls DateAndTime, blissfully unaware that it's calling your custom mocked implementation. frank

Dec. 4, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] Building Pharo using Interpreter Class

by Kirstin Heidler

Hello Stephane, he tried several times last thursday. He also tried using Nabble which did not work. Nabble produced some error about him not having permission to post. However in the interface of Nabble it displays him as a well registered user, as far as I can judge. This is one of the headers when he tried to send to the mailing list: -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Building Pharo without using only Interpreter class Datum: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:18:13 +0100 Von: Dimitri Korsch <dimitri.korsch(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> An: <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> Kopie (CC): Kirstin Heidler <kirstin.heidler(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de>, <nicco.kunzmann(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> Maybe it didn't work becuase Nicco and I were in CC? Kirstin Am 03.12.2013 20:58, schrieb StÃ©phane Ducasse: > Hello kirstin > > why dimitri is not able to post? can you tell us more? > > Stef > > On Dec 3, 2013, at 1:17 PM, Kirstin Heidler <kirstin.heidler(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote: > >> My freind Dimitri was not able to post his message. I am working with him on this. >> >> _______________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Hello, >> >> as part of a Seminar in the University im trying to build the PharoVM. >> According to the README file here ([1]) I was able to generate and to >> build the VM successfully. >> >> Now I would like to build the VM without Cog or Stack-to-Register >> optimizations... The problem here is, that I could not find any config >> class (which is a subclass of CPlatformConfig), that provides the right >> configurations and allows to build the VM without errors. I have tried >> to modify PharoUnixConfig(because it was the default config class), but >> unfortunately the build failes when the compiler tries to compile >> gcc3x-interp.c. >> >> Could somebody help me with this problem? How should I configure my own >> Config class? >> >> Basically our Group tries to implement an object table in Pharo and we >> want to use (and modify) the basic Interpreter class. >> >> >> >> [1] https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-vm >> >> >> Best regards, >> Dimitri Korsch >> >

Dec. 4, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Unifying Testing Ideas

by Sean P. DeNigris

The reason for my initial hesitation was that... in rspec, it is easy to stub out global class objects and... I don't think this is the right solution for the problem.Â Ha ha, you were right to be cautious. I've been thinking for offer a year about how to do that without method wrappers. But I will control myself in your project ;) ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Unifying-Testing-Ideas-tp4726787p4727283.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Dec. 4, 2013

Issue tracker: do not forget to change state to "fix review needed"

by Marcus Denker

Hi, When submitting a fix, please do not forget to change the state of the issue. And issue with âwork neededâ yet a fix in the inbox will only be looked at by chance, and that chance is *very* low with 570 open issuesâ¦ Marcus

Dec. 4, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Slice 12324

by Stephan Eggermont

Thanks Marcus.

Dec. 4, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Unifying Testing Ideas

by Frank Shearar

On 4 December 2013 10:01, Attila Magyar <m.magyar3(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Sean P. DeNigris wrote >> Are you interested in integrating my changes into the current API? If so, >> I'll refactor them and clean them up. I personally would find it difficult >> to use the library without them. Coming from Ruby, a proper test double >> framework is the thing I miss most. Rspec was amazing. BabyMock is close, >> and with these changes has the test double features I commonly relied on >> Rspec for... > > Yes, anyArgs can be useful, and I was thinking about the /does/ extension > too, and I convinced myself that it is ok and useful. I gave you access to > the repo. > > The reason for my initial hesitation was that my goal is to not have too > powerful features like rspec has. E.g. in rspec, it is easy to stub out > global class objects and I see lots of ruby programmer doing it. I don't > think this is the right solution for the problem. Can you give an example of what you mean? Being about to stub out the file system, or the clock, seem like extremely useful things to do. (See https://github.com/defunkt/fakefs for instance.) frank

Dec. 4, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Unifying Testing Ideas

by Attila Magyar

Sean P. DeNigris wrote > Are you interested in integrating my changes into the current API? If so, > I'll refactor them and clean them up. I personally would find it difficult > to use the library without them. Coming from Ruby, a proper test double > framework is the thing I miss most. Rspec was amazing. BabyMock is close, > and with these changes has the test double features I commonly relied on > Rspec for... Yes, anyArgs can be useful, and I was thinking about the /does/ extension too, and I convinced myself that it is ok and useful. I gave you access to the repo. The reason for my initial hesitation was that my goal is to not have too powerful features like rspec has. E.g. in rspec, it is easy to stub out global class objects and I see lots of ruby programmer doing it. I don't think this is the right solution for the problem. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Unifying-Testing-Ideas-tp4726787p4727265.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Dec. 4, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Slice 12324

by Marcus Denker

On 03 Dec 2013, at 18:36, Stephan Eggermont <stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote: > Can anyone put it in place? Canât seem to commit it I get an error when I try to copy it to the inbox, but saving it again worked. Marcus

Dec. 4, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Unifying Testing Ideas

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Dec 4, 2013, at 5:18 AM, Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This is the task I would really like to participate in. Although, just as you, I have no time at all, I still will find at least few hours a week :) welcome to our nice club of busy people

Dec. 4, 2013