December 2016 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] RBPattern matching dynamic array expressions

by Yuriy Tymchuk

Hi John, thank you for our reply it is really helpful. Can you please also spend a bit of your time to talk about the âpermissiveness" of the pattern syntax. For example the string '`.head `.@tailâ is parsed into a message node with selector `.@tail and a receiver variable node `.head. To my knowledge this is not a valid syntax as the names that have a dot in the beginning should become matchers for statements. Also for example if you write `#@literal the list marker is not doing anything when combines with the literal pound as far as I know, and some people are confused about this, were the any reason why this is not simply rising a syntax error? Cheers. Uko > On 11 Dec 2016, at 00:46, John Brant <brant(a)refactoryworkers.com> wrote: > > On 12/10/2016 02:37 AM, Nicolai Hess wrote: > >> Question : how should a pattern with three variables >> (first/second/third) look like to match the expression >> { (1@2) . Color red . 3} and assign the (sub)-expressions >> 1@2 >> Color red >> 3 >> to the three variables first/second/third ? > > The RB was written before the {} array syntax. It appears that are a few bugs in the pattern matching for the arrays. The first is that it needs to reset the isList variable of RBPatternVariableNode when it is part of a dynamic array. You can fix that by adding this to the end of RBPatternVariableNode>>parent: method: > > parent isDynamicArray > ifTrue: [ self isStatement > ifFalse: [ isList := false ] ] > > I think this will make the matching work like what you are expecting. If you want to match multiple statements, you need to add a ".", but if you just have "`@first", it will only match any expression node. > > While testing I noticed an error in the RBArrayNode>>match:inContext:. The method doesn't test the lengths of the nodes before sending the #with:do: message. If you try to match two arrays of different sizes, you get an error. This should be changed back to be: > > match: aNode inContext: aDictionary > aNode class = self class > ifFalse: [ ^ false ]. > ^ self matchList: statements against: aNode statements inContext: aDictionary > > > John Brant >

Dec. 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] About traits

by Dale Henrichs

On 12/11/16 12:06 AM, stepharong wrote: > > Dale > > I missed your remark about traits. > I think that traits are nice because they act as a kind of static > macro expansion and really help to get multiple inheritance into > single one. > > Now ideally I would like to have > > (I hate so much this google nonUI) > > - state with traits with a nice initialization process. > - Now Pablo did a nice and simple implementation of Talents (dynamic > traits). I should have a look because if we could unify it and have > either a trait statically applied to a class (what we have now) and a > trait being applicable to an instance then it would be really good. > > > Now making the tools traits-aware is much more than just having traits > in the language. > - change > - loading > - editing > - overloading when we compile a method that comes from a trait we > should be able to say that it overrides..... > > What we did with the "unification" of traits and classes and the use > of traits inside the kernel is a mistake (in Squeak andreas if I > recall made Trait a subclass of classDescription > and this is not good either - even if he marketed it as a good idea) > and we will iterated to remove the use of traits from Class and friends. > Then ideally I would like to iterate over the > - reflective API (because we should be able to simply access the > "class" of a compiledMethod from where the traits is coming from or > where it is installed > - revisite the implementation because the clause composition. > >> >> I think that the tools should not manipulate traits as classes >> because traits are not classes. >> Then doing this we will clarify that the traits and classes must >> not be polymorphic because they are not. >> > Stef, > > Thanks for the clarification ... we are open to adding traits to > GemStone and perhaps we should talk a little bit more about your > ideas on a "better implementation" ... at this point GemStone 3.5 > would be the target version and that would give us time for > syncing up the implementation. > > > Sure. > This can be a good incentive for us to revisit it. Sounds like a plan...

Dec. 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] NeoUUIDGenerator>>testTwoSameGenerator - intermittent CI failure

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 11 Dec 2016, at 16:50, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Henrik Nergaard <henrik.nergaard(a)uia.no> wrote: > >The timing problem might indeed be resolution dependent: 100us is probably to short sometimes. > Time microsecondClockValue gives the time in microseconds, but it does not guarantee microsecond resolution, on windows the resolution is still in milliseconds. > > Useful to know. But regardless of the resolution, the units are still microseconds. > So the majority of the time you'll assert: 3622 - 3622 < 100 > which passes, > but other times you'll cross the boundary and you'll assert: ...4622 - ...3622 < 100, > which fails. > > The important question is, what resolution of time is important for UUIDs? > If 10ms is sufficient, then ...4622 - ...3622 < 10000 easily passes on even the slowest computer.. I don't think it is terribly important, but if #microsecondClockValue has such a bad resolution on Windows (as hendrik showed), that is a general problem. It just not good. > ---------- > | col | > > col := Array new: 30000 streamContents: [ :stream | > 1 to: 30000 do: [ :x | stream nextPut: Time microsecondClockValue ] > ]. > > col asSet "a Set(3658909536504622 3658909536503622 3658909536502622)"' > > btw I forgot to mention I'm on 32-bit Linux. So thankfully I get... > col asSet size "==>16135" > > btw2, For a challenge I'm lining up to improve the VM clock "sometime", maybe end of Feb (if it proves within my capability no one else gets to it first). > https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/issues/36 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Sven Van Caekenberghe > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 11:56 AM > To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] NeoUUIDGenerator>>testTwoSameGenerator - intermittent CI failure > > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for looking into this, it was bothering me for quite some time ;-) > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19453/NeoUUIDGenerator-testTwoSameGenerat… > > Yes, I think the counter roll-over is the problem, stupid of me to to have seen this. > > The timing problem might indeed be resolution dependent: 100us is probably to short sometimes. > > I will provide a slice with fixes. > > Cool. Ping me from the slice. > cheers -ben > > > Thanks again ! > > Regards, > > Sven > > > On 11 Dec 2016, at 09:07, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > > > For Case [1] I got an unrelated CI failure [2] for > > NeoUUIDGeneratorTests>>#testTwoSameGenerator > > > > Checking this locally by running this a dozen times... > > 1 to: 1000 do: [:n| last:=n. NeoUUIDGeneratorTests new setUp > > testTwoSameGenerator ] > > > > Two distinct failures are apparent... > > > > 1. Takes longer than expected. > > self assert: (time2 - time1) abs < 100 > > last=1 ==> a time difference of 109 > > last=1 ==> a time difference of 102 > > last=1 ==> a time difference of 155 > > last=1 ==> a time difference of 105 > > Interesting that whenever this happens its on the first iteration. > > > > 2. Invalid consecutive ids. > > self assert: (uuid1 at: 10) + 1 equals: (uuid2 at: 10). > > last=127 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > > last=828 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > > last=128 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > > last=316 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > > Maybe a problem with rollover? > > > > So instrumenting a bit: > > testTwoSameGenerator: n > > | uuid1 uuid2 consecutiveOk time1 time2 timeOk | > > .... > > "same generator, consequetive counters" > > consecutiveOk := ((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) = (uuid2 at: 10). > > "same generators, similar clock, within 100 milliseconds" > > time1 := self timeFromUUID: uuid1. > > time2 := self timeFromUUID: uuid2. > > timeOk := (time2 - time1) abs < 100. > > ( timeOk and: [ consecutiveOk ]) ifFalse: [ > > Transcript cr; > > show: 'fail n=', (n printPaddedWith: $0 to: 3) ; tab; > > show: ' time ', ((time2 - time1) printString) , '<100'; tab; > > show: ' uuid ', (((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) printString, '=', (uuid2 at: 10) printString). > > ]. > > self assert: consecutiveOk. > > self assert: timeOk. > > > > From playground running... > > 1 to: 1000 do: [:n| > > NeoUUIDGeneratorTests new setUp testTwoSameGenerator: n]. > > Transcript crShow: 'x'. > > > > Note the 'x' was not output due to one of the consecutiveOk or timeOk asserts triggered each run. > > fail n=001 time 104<100 uuid 160=160 > > fail n=269 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=001 time 152<100 uuid 166=166 > > fail n=117 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=001 time 123<100 uuid 128=128 > > fail n=278 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=001 time 145<100 uuid 230=230 > > fail n=673 time 1340<100 uuid 141=141 > > fail n=707 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=001 time 132<100 uuid 73=73 > > fail n=001 time 117<100 uuid 206=206 > > fail n=063 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=345 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > > > Now a strange thing is that after commenting out those two asserts for consecutiveOk and timeOk, the fails at n=001 stop happening. > > > > fail n=001 time 141<100 uuid 232=232 > > x > > x > > fail n=201 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=268 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=359 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=408 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=559 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > x > > fail n=139 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=854 time 7<100 uuid 256=0 > > x > > fail n=389 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=669 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=876 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=916 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=953 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=954 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > x > > fail n=148 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=741 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > x > > fail n=116 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=480 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > x > > > > After treating the rollover like this... > > consecutiveOk := ((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) \\ 256 = (uuid2 at: 10). > > running the last playground script gives... > > > > (Note the n=001 fail reoccurs after waiting a while between running the playground script again.) > > fail n=001 time 123<100 uuid 110=110 > > x > > fail n=345 time 1287<100 uuid 24=24 > > fail n=404 time 1313<100 uuid 125=125 > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > fail n=449 time 1290<100 uuid 24=24 > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > > > > > Thats looking better, so upping to 10000 iterations... > > fail n=0001 time 151<100 uuid 160=160 > > fail n=2977 time 1437<100 uuid 221=221 > > fail n=5498 time 1454<100 uuid 224=224 > > fail n=9007 time 1351<100 uuid 239=239 > > x > > fail n=3389 time 1381<100 uuid 223=223 > > fail n=7768 time 1365<100 uuid 82=82 > > fail n=9773 time 1395<100 uuid 164=164 > > x > > fail n=3325 time 1448<100 uuid 67=67 > > fail n=9930 time 1456<100 uuid 103=103 > > x > > fail n=0060 time 2914<100 uuid 159=159 > > fail n=1829 time 1438<100 uuid 32=32 > > fail n=7918 time 1436<100 uuid 182=182 > > x > > > > So the rollover looks cured. > > > > Now adding some more instrumentation to view GC Time and Time To Run > > and (see attached ST file) > > > > 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00.001 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 > > x > > fail n=0001 time 115<100 uuid 157=157 GCTime 0 TTR 0:00:00:00 > > fail n=0001 time 2<100 uuid 255=0 GCTime 0 TTR 0:00:00:00 > > x > > fail n=0001 time 111<100 uuid 104=104 GCTime 0 TTR 0 > > x > > fail n=0001 time 120<100 uuid 204=204 GCTime 0 TTR 0 > > fail n=0001 time 1182<100 uuid 103=103 GCTime 1 TTR 1 > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > fail n=0001 time 3<100 uuid 255=0 GCTime 0 TTR 0 > > x > > x > > fail n=0001 time 1251<100 uuid 253=253 GCTime 2 TTR 1 > > x > > > > > > Now I wonder at the class comment saying... > > "the first 8 bytes are the *millisecond* clock value" > > but #clockOn: is using *microsecond* clock. > > Perhaps "self assert: (time2 - time1) abs < 100" > > is meant to be 100ms not 100us ?? > > > > cheers -ben > > > > [1] https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19438 > > [2] > > https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-6.0-Issue-Validator/19471//artifac > > t/validationReport.html > > <NeoUUIDGeneratorTests-testTwoSameGenerator.st> > > > >

Dec. 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] NeoUUIDGenerator>>testTwoSameGenerator - intermittent CI failure

by Ben Coman

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Henrik Nergaard <henrik.nergaard(a)uia.no> wrote: > >The timing problem might indeed be resolution dependent: 100us is > probably to short sometimes. > Time microsecondClockValue gives the time in microseconds, but it does not > guarantee microsecond resolution, on windows the resolution is still in > milliseconds. > Useful to know. But regardless of the resolution, the units are still microseconds. So the majority of the time you'll assert: 3622 - 3622 < 100 which passes, but other times you'll cross the boundary and you'll assert: ...4622 - ...3622 < 100, which fails. The important question is, what resolution of time is important for UUIDs? If 10ms is sufficient, then ...4622 - ...3622 < 10000 easily passes on even the slowest computer.. > ---------- > | col | > > col := Array new: 30000 streamContents: [ :stream | > 1 to: 30000 do: [ :x | stream nextPut: Time microsecondClockValue ] > ]. > > col asSet "a Set(3658909536504622 3658909536503622 3658909536502622)"' > btw I forgot to mention I'm on 32-bit Linux. So thankfully I get... col asSet size "==>16135" btw2, For a challenge I'm lining up to improve the VM clock "sometime", maybe end of Feb (if it proves within my capability no one else gets to it first). https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/issues/36 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of > Sven Van Caekenberghe > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 11:56 AM > To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] NeoUUIDGenerator>>testTwoSameGenerator - > intermittent CI failure > > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for looking into this, it was bothering me for quite some time ;-) > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19453/NeoUUIDGenerator- > testTwoSameGenerator-intermittent-CI-failure > > Yes, I think the counter roll-over is the problem, stupid of me to to have > seen this. > > The timing problem might indeed be resolution dependent: 100us is probably > to short sometimes. > > I will provide a slice with fixes. > Cool. Ping me from the slice. cheers -ben > > Thanks again ! > > Regards, > > Sven > > > On 11 Dec 2016, at 09:07, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > > > For Case [1] I got an unrelated CI failure [2] for > > NeoUUIDGeneratorTests>>#testTwoSameGenerator > > > > Checking this locally by running this a dozen times... > > 1 to: 1000 do: [:n| last:=n. NeoUUIDGeneratorTests new setUp > > testTwoSameGenerator ] > > > > Two distinct failures are apparent... > > > > 1. Takes longer than expected. > > self assert: (time2 - time1) abs < 100 > > last=1 ==> a time difference of 109 > > last=1 ==> a time difference of 102 > > last=1 ==> a time difference of 155 > > last=1 ==> a time difference of 105 > > Interesting that whenever this happens its on the first iteration. > > > > 2. Invalid consecutive ids. > > self assert: (uuid1 at: 10) + 1 equals: (uuid2 at: 10). > > last=127 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > > last=828 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > > last=128 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > > last=316 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > > Maybe a problem with rollover? > > > > So instrumenting a bit: > > testTwoSameGenerator: n > > | uuid1 uuid2 consecutiveOk time1 time2 timeOk | > > .... > > "same generator, consequetive counters" > > consecutiveOk := ((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) = (uuid2 at: 10). > > "same generators, similar clock, within 100 milliseconds" > > time1 := self timeFromUUID: uuid1. > > time2 := self timeFromUUID: uuid2. > > timeOk := (time2 - time1) abs < 100. > > ( timeOk and: [ consecutiveOk ]) ifFalse: [ > > Transcript cr; > > show: 'fail n=', (n printPaddedWith: $0 to: 3) ; tab; > > show: ' time ', ((time2 - time1) printString) , '<100'; tab; > > show: ' uuid ', (((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) printString, '=', > (uuid2 at: 10) printString). > > ]. > > self assert: consecutiveOk. > > self assert: timeOk. > > > > From playground running... > > 1 to: 1000 do: [:n| > > NeoUUIDGeneratorTests new setUp testTwoSameGenerator: n]. > > Transcript crShow: 'x'. > > > > Note the 'x' was not output due to one of the consecutiveOk or timeOk > asserts triggered each run. > > fail n=001 time 104<100 uuid 160=160 > > fail n=269 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=001 time 152<100 uuid 166=166 > > fail n=117 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=001 time 123<100 uuid 128=128 > > fail n=278 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=001 time 145<100 uuid 230=230 > > fail n=673 time 1340<100 uuid 141=141 > > fail n=707 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=001 time 132<100 uuid 73=73 > > fail n=001 time 117<100 uuid 206=206 > > fail n=063 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=345 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > > > Now a strange thing is that after commenting out those two asserts for > consecutiveOk and timeOk, the fails at n=001 stop happening. > > > > fail n=001 time 141<100 uuid 232=232 > > x > > x > > fail n=201 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=268 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=359 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=408 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=559 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > x > > fail n=139 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=854 time 7<100 uuid 256=0 > > x > > fail n=389 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=669 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=876 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=916 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=953 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=954 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > x > > fail n=148 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=741 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > x > > fail n=116 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > > fail n=480 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > x > > > > After treating the rollover like this... > > consecutiveOk := ((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) \\ 256 = (uuid2 at: 10). > > running the last playground script gives... > > > > (Note the n=001 fail reoccurs after waiting a while between running the > playground script again.) > > fail n=001 time 123<100 uuid 110=110 > > x > > fail n=345 time 1287<100 uuid 24=24 > > fail n=404 time 1313<100 uuid 125=125 > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > fail n=449 time 1290<100 uuid 24=24 > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > > > > > Thats looking better, so upping to 10000 iterations... > > fail n=0001 time 151<100 uuid 160=160 > > fail n=2977 time 1437<100 uuid 221=221 > > fail n=5498 time 1454<100 uuid 224=224 > > fail n=9007 time 1351<100 uuid 239=239 > > x > > fail n=3389 time 1381<100 uuid 223=223 > > fail n=7768 time 1365<100 uuid 82=82 > > fail n=9773 time 1395<100 uuid 164=164 > > x > > fail n=3325 time 1448<100 uuid 67=67 > > fail n=9930 time 1456<100 uuid 103=103 > > x > > fail n=0060 time 2914<100 uuid 159=159 > > fail n=1829 time 1438<100 uuid 32=32 > > fail n=7918 time 1436<100 uuid 182=182 > > x > > > > So the rollover looks cured. > > > > Now adding some more instrumentation to view GC Time and Time To Run > > and (see attached ST file) > > > > 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00.001 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 > TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR > 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 > > x > > fail n=0001 time 115<100 uuid 157=157 GCTime 0 TTR 0:00:00:00 > > fail n=0001 time 2<100 uuid 255=0 GCTime 0 TTR 0:00:00:00 > > x > > fail n=0001 time 111<100 uuid 104=104 GCTime 0 TTR 0 > > x > > fail n=0001 time 120<100 uuid 204=204 GCTime 0 TTR 0 > > fail n=0001 time 1182<100 uuid 103=103 GCTime 1 TTR 1 > > x > > x > > x > > x > > x > > fail n=0001 time 3<100 uuid 255=0 GCTime 0 TTR 0 > > x > > x > > fail n=0001 time 1251<100 uuid 253=253 GCTime 2 TTR 1 > > x > > > > > > Now I wonder at the class comment saying... > > "the first 8 bytes are the *millisecond* clock value" > > but #clockOn: is using *microsecond* clock. > > Perhaps "self assert: (time2 - time1) abs < 100" > > is meant to be 100ms not 100us ?? > > > > cheers -ben > > > > [1] https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19438 > > [2] > > https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-6.0-Issue-Validator/19471//artifac > > t/validationReport.html > > <NeoUUIDGeneratorTests-testTwoSameGenerator.st> > > > >

Dec. 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] NeoUUIDGenerator>>testTwoSameGenerator - intermittent CI failure

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 11 Dec 2016, at 12:49, Henrik Nergaard <henrik.nergaard(a)uia.no> wrote: > >> The timing problem might indeed be resolution dependent: 100us is probably to short sometimes. > Time microsecondClockValue gives the time in microseconds, but it does not guarantee microsecond resolution, on windows the resolution is still in milliseconds. > > ---------- > | col | > > col := Array new: 30000 streamContents: [ :stream | > 1 to: 30000 do: [ :x | stream nextPut: Time microsecondClockValue ] > ]. > > col asSet "a Set(3658909536504622 3658909536503622 3658909536502622)"' > --------- Cool test, very sad result ;-) > Best regards, > Henrik > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Sven Van Caekenberghe > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 11:56 AM > To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] NeoUUIDGenerator>>testTwoSameGenerator - intermittent CI failure > > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for looking into this, it was bothering me for quite some time ;-) > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19453/NeoUUIDGenerator-testTwoSameGenerat… > > Yes, I think the counter roll-over is the problem, stupid of me to to have seen this. > > The timing problem might indeed be resolution dependent: 100us is probably to short sometimes. > > I will provide a slice with fixes. > > Thanks again ! > > Regards, > > Sven > >> On 11 Dec 2016, at 09:07, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >> >> For Case [1] I got an unrelated CI failure [2] for >> NeoUUIDGeneratorTests>>#testTwoSameGenerator >> >> Checking this locally by running this a dozen times... >> 1 to: 1000 do: [:n| last:=n. NeoUUIDGeneratorTests new setUp >> testTwoSameGenerator ] >> >> Two distinct failures are apparent... >> >> 1. Takes longer than expected. >> self assert: (time2 - time1) abs < 100 >> last=1 ==> a time difference of 109 >> last=1 ==> a time difference of 102 >> last=1 ==> a time difference of 155 >> last=1 ==> a time difference of 105 >> Interesting that whenever this happens its on the first iteration. >> >> 2. Invalid consecutive ids. >> self assert: (uuid1 at: 10) + 1 equals: (uuid2 at: 10). >> last=127 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. >> last=828 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. >> last=128 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. >> last=316 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. >> Maybe a problem with rollover? >> >> So instrumenting a bit: >> testTwoSameGenerator: n >> | uuid1 uuid2 consecutiveOk time1 time2 timeOk | >> .... >> "same generator, consequetive counters" >> consecutiveOk := ((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) = (uuid2 at: 10). >> "same generators, similar clock, within 100 milliseconds" >> time1 := self timeFromUUID: uuid1. >> time2 := self timeFromUUID: uuid2. >> timeOk := (time2 - time1) abs < 100. >> ( timeOk and: [ consecutiveOk ]) ifFalse: [ >> Transcript cr; >> show: 'fail n=', (n printPaddedWith: $0 to: 3) ; tab; >> show: ' time ', ((time2 - time1) printString) , '<100'; tab; >> show: ' uuid ', (((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) printString, '=', (uuid2 at: 10) printString). >> ]. >> self assert: consecutiveOk. >> self assert: timeOk. >> >> From playground running... >> 1 to: 1000 do: [:n| >> NeoUUIDGeneratorTests new setUp testTwoSameGenerator: n]. >> Transcript crShow: 'x'. >> >> Note the 'x' was not output due to one of the consecutiveOk or timeOk asserts triggered each run. >> fail n=001 time 104<100 uuid 160=160 >> fail n=269 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=001 time 152<100 uuid 166=166 >> fail n=117 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=001 time 123<100 uuid 128=128 >> fail n=278 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=001 time 145<100 uuid 230=230 >> fail n=673 time 1340<100 uuid 141=141 >> fail n=707 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=001 time 132<100 uuid 73=73 >> fail n=001 time 117<100 uuid 206=206 >> fail n=063 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=345 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> >> Now a strange thing is that after commenting out those two asserts for consecutiveOk and timeOk, the fails at n=001 stop happening. >> >> fail n=001 time 141<100 uuid 232=232 >> x >> x >> fail n=201 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=268 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=359 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=408 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=559 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> x >> fail n=139 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=854 time 7<100 uuid 256=0 >> x >> fail n=389 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=669 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=876 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=916 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=953 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=954 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> x >> fail n=148 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=741 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> x >> fail n=116 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 >> fail n=480 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 >> x >> >> After treating the rollover like this... >> consecutiveOk := ((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) \\ 256 = (uuid2 at: 10). >> running the last playground script gives... >> >> (Note the n=001 fail reoccurs after waiting a while between running the playground script again.) >> fail n=001 time 123<100 uuid 110=110 >> x >> fail n=345 time 1287<100 uuid 24=24 >> fail n=404 time 1313<100 uuid 125=125 >> x >> x >> x >> x >> x >> fail n=449 time 1290<100 uuid 24=24 >> x >> x >> x >> x >> x >> >> >> Thats looking better, so upping to 10000 iterations... >> fail n=0001 time 151<100 uuid 160=160 >> fail n=2977 time 1437<100 uuid 221=221 >> fail n=5498 time 1454<100 uuid 224=224 >> fail n=9007 time 1351<100 uuid 239=239 >> x >> fail n=3389 time 1381<100 uuid 223=223 >> fail n=7768 time 1365<100 uuid 82=82 >> fail n=9773 time 1395<100 uuid 164=164 >> x >> fail n=3325 time 1448<100 uuid 67=67 >> fail n=9930 time 1456<100 uuid 103=103 >> x >> fail n=0060 time 2914<100 uuid 159=159 >> fail n=1829 time 1438<100 uuid 32=32 >> fail n=7918 time 1436<100 uuid 182=182 >> x >> >> So the rollover looks cured. >> >> Now adding some more instrumentation to view GC Time and Time To Run >> and (see attached ST file) >> >> 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00.001 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 >> x >> fail n=0001 time 115<100 uuid 157=157 GCTime 0 TTR 0:00:00:00 >> fail n=0001 time 2<100 uuid 255=0 GCTime 0 TTR 0:00:00:00 >> x >> fail n=0001 time 111<100 uuid 104=104 GCTime 0 TTR 0 >> x >> fail n=0001 time 120<100 uuid 204=204 GCTime 0 TTR 0 >> fail n=0001 time 1182<100 uuid 103=103 GCTime 1 TTR 1 >> x >> x >> x >> x >> x >> fail n=0001 time 3<100 uuid 255=0 GCTime 0 TTR 0 >> x >> x >> fail n=0001 time 1251<100 uuid 253=253 GCTime 2 TTR 1 >> x >> >> >> Now I wonder at the class comment saying... >> "the first 8 bytes are the *millisecond* clock value" >> but #clockOn: is using *microsecond* clock. >> Perhaps "self assert: (time2 - time1) abs < 100" >> is meant to be 100ms not 100us ?? >> >> cheers -ben >> >> [1] https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19438 >> [2] >> https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-6.0-Issue-Validator/19471//artifac >> t/validationReport.html >> <NeoUUIDGeneratorTests-testTwoSameGenerator.st> > > >

Dec. 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] NeoUUIDGenerator>>testTwoSameGenerator - intermittent CI failure

by Henrik Nergaard

>The timing problem might indeed be resolution dependent: 100us is probably to short sometimes. Time microsecondClockValue gives the time in microseconds, but it does not guarantee microsecond resolution, on windows the resolution is still in milliseconds. ---------- | col | col := Array new: 30000 streamContents: [ :stream | 1 to: 30000 do: [ :x | stream nextPut: Time microsecondClockValue ] ]. col asSet "a Set(3658909536504622 3658909536503622 3658909536502622)"' --------- Best regards, Henrik -----Original Message----- From: Pharo-dev [mailto:pharo-dev-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of Sven Van Caekenberghe Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 11:56 AM To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] NeoUUIDGenerator>>testTwoSameGenerator - intermittent CI failure Hi Ben, Thanks for looking into this, it was bothering me for quite some time ;-) https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19453/NeoUUIDGenerator-testTwoSameGenerat… Yes, I think the counter roll-over is the problem, stupid of me to to have seen this. The timing problem might indeed be resolution dependent: 100us is probably to short sometimes. I will provide a slice with fixes. Thanks again ! Regards, Sven > On 11 Dec 2016, at 09:07, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > For Case [1] I got an unrelated CI failure [2] for > NeoUUIDGeneratorTests>>#testTwoSameGenerator > > Checking this locally by running this a dozen times... > 1 to: 1000 do: [:n| last:=n. NeoUUIDGeneratorTests new setUp > testTwoSameGenerator ] > > Two distinct failures are apparent... > > 1. Takes longer than expected. > self assert: (time2 - time1) abs < 100 > last=1 ==> a time difference of 109 > last=1 ==> a time difference of 102 > last=1 ==> a time difference of 155 > last=1 ==> a time difference of 105 > Interesting that whenever this happens its on the first iteration. > > 2. Invalid consecutive ids. > self assert: (uuid1 at: 10) + 1 equals: (uuid2 at: 10). > last=127 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > last=828 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > last=128 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > last=316 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > Maybe a problem with rollover? > > So instrumenting a bit: > testTwoSameGenerator: n > | uuid1 uuid2 consecutiveOk time1 time2 timeOk | > .... > "same generator, consequetive counters" > consecutiveOk := ((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) = (uuid2 at: 10). > "same generators, similar clock, within 100 milliseconds" > time1 := self timeFromUUID: uuid1. > time2 := self timeFromUUID: uuid2. > timeOk := (time2 - time1) abs < 100. > ( timeOk and: [ consecutiveOk ]) ifFalse: [ > Transcript cr; > show: 'fail n=', (n printPaddedWith: $0 to: 3) ; tab; > show: ' time ', ((time2 - time1) printString) , '<100'; tab; > show: ' uuid ', (((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) printString, '=', (uuid2 at: 10) printString). > ]. > self assert: consecutiveOk. > self assert: timeOk. > > From playground running... > 1 to: 1000 do: [:n| > NeoUUIDGeneratorTests new setUp testTwoSameGenerator: n]. > Transcript crShow: 'x'. > > Note the 'x' was not output due to one of the consecutiveOk or timeOk asserts triggered each run. > fail n=001 time 104<100 uuid 160=160 > fail n=269 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=001 time 152<100 uuid 166=166 > fail n=117 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=001 time 123<100 uuid 128=128 > fail n=278 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=001 time 145<100 uuid 230=230 > fail n=673 time 1340<100 uuid 141=141 > fail n=707 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=001 time 132<100 uuid 73=73 > fail n=001 time 117<100 uuid 206=206 > fail n=063 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=345 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > Now a strange thing is that after commenting out those two asserts for consecutiveOk and timeOk, the fails at n=001 stop happening. > > fail n=001 time 141<100 uuid 232=232 > x > x > fail n=201 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=268 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=359 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=408 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=559 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > x > fail n=139 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=854 time 7<100 uuid 256=0 > x > fail n=389 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=669 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=876 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=916 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=953 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=954 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > x > fail n=148 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=741 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > x > fail n=116 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=480 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > x > > After treating the rollover like this... > consecutiveOk := ((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) \\ 256 = (uuid2 at: 10). > running the last playground script gives... > > (Note the n=001 fail reoccurs after waiting a while between running the playground script again.) > fail n=001 time 123<100 uuid 110=110 > x > fail n=345 time 1287<100 uuid 24=24 > fail n=404 time 1313<100 uuid 125=125 > x > x > x > x > x > fail n=449 time 1290<100 uuid 24=24 > x > x > x > x > x > > > Thats looking better, so upping to 10000 iterations... > fail n=0001 time 151<100 uuid 160=160 > fail n=2977 time 1437<100 uuid 221=221 > fail n=5498 time 1454<100 uuid 224=224 > fail n=9007 time 1351<100 uuid 239=239 > x > fail n=3389 time 1381<100 uuid 223=223 > fail n=7768 time 1365<100 uuid 82=82 > fail n=9773 time 1395<100 uuid 164=164 > x > fail n=3325 time 1448<100 uuid 67=67 > fail n=9930 time 1456<100 uuid 103=103 > x > fail n=0060 time 2914<100 uuid 159=159 > fail n=1829 time 1438<100 uuid 32=32 > fail n=7918 time 1436<100 uuid 182=182 > x > > So the rollover looks cured. > > Now adding some more instrumentation to view GC Time and Time To Run > and (see attached ST file) > > 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00.001 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 > x > fail n=0001 time 115<100 uuid 157=157 GCTime 0 TTR 0:00:00:00 > fail n=0001 time 2<100 uuid 255=0 GCTime 0 TTR 0:00:00:00 > x > fail n=0001 time 111<100 uuid 104=104 GCTime 0 TTR 0 > x > fail n=0001 time 120<100 uuid 204=204 GCTime 0 TTR 0 > fail n=0001 time 1182<100 uuid 103=103 GCTime 1 TTR 1 > x > x > x > x > x > fail n=0001 time 3<100 uuid 255=0 GCTime 0 TTR 0 > x > x > fail n=0001 time 1251<100 uuid 253=253 GCTime 2 TTR 1 > x > > > Now I wonder at the class comment saying... > "the first 8 bytes are the *millisecond* clock value" > but #clockOn: is using *microsecond* clock. > Perhaps "self assert: (time2 - time1) abs < 100" > is meant to be 100ms not 100us ?? > > cheers -ben > > [1] https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19438 > [2] > https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-6.0-Issue-Validator/19471//artifac > t/validationReport.html > <NeoUUIDGeneratorTests-testTwoSameGenerator.st>

Dec. 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] NeoUUIDGenerator>>testTwoSameGenerator - intermittent CI failure

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Hi Ben, Thanks for looking into this, it was bothering me for quite some time ;-) https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19453/NeoUUIDGenerator-testTwoSameGenerat… Yes, I think the counter roll-over is the problem, stupid of me to to have seen this. The timing problem might indeed be resolution dependent: 100us is probably to short sometimes. I will provide a slice with fixes. Thanks again ! Regards, Sven > On 11 Dec 2016, at 09:07, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > For Case [1] I got an unrelated CI failure [2] for > NeoUUIDGeneratorTests>>#testTwoSameGenerator > > Checking this locally by running this a dozen times... > 1 to: 1000 do: [:n| last:=n. NeoUUIDGeneratorTests new setUp testTwoSameGenerator ] > > Two distinct failures are apparent... > > 1. Takes longer than expected. > self assert: (time2 - time1) abs < 100 > last=1 ==> a time difference of 109 > last=1 ==> a time difference of 102 > last=1 ==> a time difference of 155 > last=1 ==> a time difference of 105 > Interesting that whenever this happens its on the first iteration. > > 2. Invalid consecutive ids. > self assert: (uuid1 at: 10) + 1 equals: (uuid2 at: 10). > last=127 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > last=828 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > last=128 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > last=316 ==> TestFailure: Got 256 instead of 0. > Maybe a problem with rollover? > > So instrumenting a bit: > testTwoSameGenerator: n > | uuid1 uuid2 consecutiveOk time1 time2 timeOk | > .... > "same generator, consequetive counters" > consecutiveOk := ((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) = (uuid2 at: 10). > "same generators, similar clock, within 100 milliseconds" > time1 := self timeFromUUID: uuid1. > time2 := self timeFromUUID: uuid2. > timeOk := (time2 - time1) abs < 100. > ( timeOk and: [ consecutiveOk ]) ifFalse: [ > Transcript cr; > show: 'fail n=', (n printPaddedWith: $0 to: 3) ; tab; > show: ' time ', ((time2 - time1) printString) , '<100'; tab; > show: ' uuid ', (((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) printString, '=', (uuid2 at: 10) printString). > ]. > self assert: consecutiveOk. > self assert: timeOk. > > From playground running... > 1 to: 1000 do: [:n| > NeoUUIDGeneratorTests new setUp testTwoSameGenerator: n]. > Transcript crShow: 'x'. > > Note the 'x' was not output due to one of the consecutiveOk or timeOk asserts triggered each run. > fail n=001 time 104<100 uuid 160=160 > fail n=269 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=001 time 152<100 uuid 166=166 > fail n=117 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=001 time 123<100 uuid 128=128 > fail n=278 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=001 time 145<100 uuid 230=230 > fail n=673 time 1340<100 uuid 141=141 > fail n=707 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=001 time 132<100 uuid 73=73 > fail n=001 time 117<100 uuid 206=206 > fail n=063 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=345 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > > Now a strange thing is that after commenting out those two asserts for consecutiveOk and timeOk, the fails at n=001 stop happening. > > fail n=001 time 141<100 uuid 232=232 > x > x > fail n=201 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=268 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=359 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=408 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=559 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > x > fail n=139 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=854 time 7<100 uuid 256=0 > x > fail n=389 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=669 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=876 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=916 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=953 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=954 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > x > fail n=148 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=741 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > x > fail n=116 time 2<100 uuid 256=0 > fail n=480 time 3<100 uuid 256=0 > x > > After treating the rollover like this... > consecutiveOk := ((uuid1 at: 10) + 1) \\ 256 = (uuid2 at: 10). > running the last playground script gives... > > (Note the n=001 fail reoccurs after waiting a while between running the playground script again.) > fail n=001 time 123<100 uuid 110=110 > x > fail n=345 time 1287<100 uuid 24=24 > fail n=404 time 1313<100 uuid 125=125 > x > x > x > x > x > fail n=449 time 1290<100 uuid 24=24 > x > x > x > x > x > > > Thats looking better, so upping to 10000 iterations... > fail n=0001 time 151<100 uuid 160=160 > fail n=2977 time 1437<100 uuid 221=221 > fail n=5498 time 1454<100 uuid 224=224 > fail n=9007 time 1351<100 uuid 239=239 > x > fail n=3389 time 1381<100 uuid 223=223 > fail n=7768 time 1365<100 uuid 82=82 > fail n=9773 time 1395<100 uuid 164=164 > x > fail n=3325 time 1448<100 uuid 67=67 > fail n=9930 time 1456<100 uuid 103=103 > x > fail n=0060 time 2914<100 uuid 159=159 > fail n=1829 time 1438<100 uuid 32=32 > fail n=7918 time 1436<100 uuid 182=182 > x > > So the rollover looks cured. > > Now adding some more instrumentation to view GC Time and Time To Run and (see attached ST file) > > 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00.001 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 TTR 0:00:00:00 > x > fail n=0001 time 115<100 uuid 157=157 GCTime 0 TTR 0:00:00:00 > fail n=0001 time 2<100 uuid 255=0 GCTime 0 TTR 0:00:00:00 > x > fail n=0001 time 111<100 uuid 104=104 GCTime 0 TTR 0 > x > fail n=0001 time 120<100 uuid 204=204 GCTime 0 TTR 0 > fail n=0001 time 1182<100 uuid 103=103 GCTime 1 TTR 1 > x > x > x > x > x > fail n=0001 time 3<100 uuid 255=0 GCTime 0 TTR 0 > x > x > fail n=0001 time 1251<100 uuid 253=253 GCTime 2 TTR 1 > x > > > Now I wonder at the class comment saying... > "the first 8 bytes are the *millisecond* clock value" > but #clockOn: is using *microsecond* clock. > Perhaps "self assert: (time2 - time1) abs < 100" > is meant to be 100ms not 100us ?? > > cheers -ben > > [1] https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19438 > [2] https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-6.0-Issue-Validator/19471//artifact/val… > <NeoUUIDGeneratorTests-testTwoSameGenerator.st>

Dec. 11, 2016

[pharo-project/pharo-core] ebe85f: 60323

by GitHub

Branch: refs/heads/6.0 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core Commit: ebe85f3731519f4db11ac58d3119708cd060c4c7 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commit/ebe85f3731519f4db11ac58d… Author: Jenkins Build Server <board(a)pharo-project.org> Date: 2016-12-11 (Sun, 11 Dec 2016) Changed paths: M ConfigurationOfFlatQA.package/ConfigurationOfFlatQA.class/class/mc-manipulation/currentVersions.st A ConfigurationOfFlatQA.package/ConfigurationOfFlatQA.class/instance/accessing/postload.st R ConfigurationOfFlatQA.package/ConfigurationOfFlatQA.class/instance/as yet unclassified/postload.st M ConfigurationOfFlatQA.package/ConfigurationOfFlatQA.class/instance/symbolic versions/stable_.st A ConfigurationOfFlatQA.package/ConfigurationOfFlatQA.class/instance/versions/versionv3%5F2%5F9_.st R OpalCompiler-Tests.package/AverageCost.class/README.md R OpalCompiler-Tests.package/AverageCost.class/definition.st R OpalCompiler-Tests.package/AverageCost.class/instance/as yet unclassified/total.st R OpalCompiler-Tests.package/OCBC2IR2BCSymbolic.class/README.md R OpalCompiler-Tests.package/OCBC2IR2BCSymbolic.class/definition.st R OpalCompiler-Tests.package/TotalCost.class/README.md R OpalCompiler-Tests.package/TotalCost.class/definition.st R OpalCompiler-Tests.package/TotalCost.class/instance/as yet unclassified/total.st R OpalCompiler-Tests.package/WeightedAverageCost.class/README.md R OpalCompiler-Tests.package/WeightedAverageCost.class/definition.st M QualityAssistant.package/extension/Object/instance/annotateRubricText_.st A QualityAssistant.package/extension/Object/instance/qaTextSegmentsDo_.st A Renraku.package/ReProperty.class/instance/actions/gtInspectorActions.st M Renraku.package/ReSmalllintChecker.class/instance/private/getCritiquesAbout_by_.st R ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script60322.st A ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script60323.st R ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update60322.st A ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update60323.st M ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/public/commentForCurrentUpdate.st Log Message: ----------- 60323 19449 QA v3.2.9 update https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19449 19440 No users of TotalCost and subclasses https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19440 http://files.pharo.org/image/60/60323.zip

Dec. 11, 2016

[pharo-project/pharo-core]

by GitHub

Branch: refs/tags/60323 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core

Dec. 11, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] About traits

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 11.12.2016 um 09:05 schrieb stepharong <stepharong(a)free.fr>: > > >> >> Dale >> >> I missed your remark about traits. >> I think that traits are nice because they act as a kind of static macro expansion and really help to get multiple inheritance into single one. >> >> Now ideally I would like to have >> (I hate so much this google nonUI) >> >> - state with traits with a nice initialization process. >> - Now Pablo did a nice and simple implementation of Talents (dynamic traits). I should have a look because if we could unify it and have >> either a trait statically applied to a class (what we have now) and a trait being applicable to an instance then it would be really good. > > Where is this Talents implementation? > I should ask pablo. > It is better than the one of jorge because it is not based on reflectivity but anonymous class. > We will document it. Sounds good. I agree the old implementation was too heavy. The anonymous class case is surely the next obvious things. I played a bit with that approach. So I'm interested to have a real inplementation for that. Norbert > > Stef > > > thanks, > > Norbert >> >> >> Now making the tools traits-aware is much more than just having traits in the language. >> - change >> - loading >> - editing >> - overloading when we compile a method that comes from a trait we should be able to say that it overrides..... >> >> What we did with the "unification" of traits and classes and the use of traits inside the kernel is a mistake (in Squeak andreas if I recall made Trait a subclass of classDescription >> and this is not good either - even if he marketed it as a good idea) and we will iterated to remove the use of traits from Class and friends. >> Then ideally I would like to iterate over the >> - reflective API (because we should be able to simply access the "class" of a compiledMethod from where the traits is coming from or where it is installed >> - revisite the implementation because the clause composition. >> >> I think that the tools should not manipulate traits as classes because traits are not classes. >> Then doing this we will clarify that the traits and classes must not be polymorphic because they are not. >> >> >> >> Stef >> > > > > -- > Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Dec. 11, 2016