March 2019 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] About a better filedialog

by ducasse

and there are tests. We should check the UIManager dependency. For now I just make it works in P7 Stef > On 19 Mar 2019, at 09:50, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > YES! > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:13 PM ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com <mailto:stepharo@netcourrier.com>> wrote: > Yes I had to rename ComposableModel into ComposablePresenter so this is probably that > >> On 18 Mar 2019, at 23:09, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com <mailto:i.uhnak@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Thanks Stef! >> >> The build is failing for Pharo 6.1 for some reason (I can't reproduce it locally), but I can look at that during the weekend... >> >> Peter >> >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 9:23 PM ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com <mailto:stepharo@netcourrier.com>> wrote: >> Alex >> >> Have a look at the one I propose and play with it. >> Let me know what you think. >> >> Stef >> >>> On 18 Mar 2019, at 21:20, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com <mailto:alexandre.bergel@me.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> From: Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com <mailto:alexandre.bergel@me.com>> >>> Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] About a better filedialog >>> Date: 18 March 2019 at 21:20:35 CET >>> To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>> >>> >>> >>> I do not have time to personally work on this. But yes, having a better file dialog would be fantastic >>> >>> Alexandre >>> >>>> On Mar 18, 2019, at 4:31 PM, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com <mailto:stepharo@netcourrier.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi guys >>>> >>>> I did a pass (ported to P7, tonel, some little fixes) on the file-dialog developed by Peter Uhnak and I think that it would be good to propose it by default in the image. >>>> what do you think? >>>> >>>> https://github.com/Ducasse/file-dialog <https://github.com/Ducasse/file-dialog> >>>> >>>> I would also like that the filedialog remembers the last list of visited directory. (I will see if I can add this). >>>> When Spec2 is out I would like to port it to Spec2. >>>> >>>> Does anybody want to help? Because it would be super nice and Iâm full with cleaning textEditor and pluggableTextMorph. >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > > Guille Polito > Research Engineer > > Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille > CRIStAL - UMR 9189 > French National Center for Scientific Research - http://www.cnrs.fr <http://www.cnrs.fr/> > > Web: http://guillep.github.io <http://guillep.github.io/> > Phone: +33 06 52 70 66 13

March 19, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Weird SUnit/TestRunner behavior

by ducasse

Indeed I do not even know what means initialize in a testCase. Stef > On 19 Mar 2019, at 17:28, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 19 Mar 2019, at 16:16, Gabriel Cotelli wrote: > >> If you don't clean up the instance variables, when you have a lot of tests >> and a test runner is still open on the results all this garbage is still >> referenced (because the test results keeps a reference to the original test >> case instance) and the image keeps growing like crazy. I can tell you for >> my experience that in our case it gets easily to GB-sized images, and the >> GC is not very happy with this. > > Indeed. > >> >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:04 PM Attila Magyar <m.magyar3(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Max Leske wrote >>>> To answer your question: yes that has been the case for a long time. The >>>> same is true for #runCase BTW. Only #setUp is sent after #tearDown (see >>>> #prepareToRunAgain). >>>> >>>> Max >>> >>> That's weird. RunCase sends a setUp, a tearDown and >>> cleanUpInstanceVariables. So the test will be executed with uninitialized >>> instance variables at the second time. Why do we need to clean up the >>> instance variables? Or why don't we reinitialize them before running the >>> test? > > I understand your grief. My solution: never use #initalize in tests, use #setUp to initialize instance variables. > > Max > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html <http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html>

March 19, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] About a better filedialog

by Peter Uhnak

Ah, I probably need to add dependency on the Spec Compat library for P6.1 On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:50 AM Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: > YES! > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:13 PM ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: > >> Yes I had to rename ComposableModel into ComposablePresenter so this is >> probably that >> >> On 18 Mar 2019, at 23:09, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks Stef! >> >> The build is failing for Pharo 6.1 for some reason (I can't reproduce it >> locally), but I can look at that during the weekend... >> >> Peter >> >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 9:23 PM ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: >> >>> Alex >>> >>> Have a look at the one I propose and play with it. >>> Let me know what you think. >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> On 18 Mar 2019, at 21:20, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> *From: *Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> >>> *Subject: **Re: [Pharo-dev] About a better filedialog* >>> *Date: *18 March 2019 at 21:20:35 CET >>> *To: *Pharo Development List <pharo-dev(a)lists.pharo.org> >>> >>> >>> I do not have time to personally work on this. But yes, having a better >>> file dialog would be fantastic >>> >>> Alexandre >>> >>> On Mar 18, 2019, at 4:31 PM, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi guys >>> >>> I did a pass (ported to P7, tonel, some little fixes) on the file-dialog >>> developed by Peter Uhnak and I think that it would be good to propose it by >>> default in the image. >>> what do you think? >>> >>> https://github.com/Ducasse/file-dialog >>> >>> I would also like that the filedialog remembers the last list of visited >>> directory. (I will see if I can add this). >>> When Spec2 is out I would like to port it to Spec2. >>> >>> Does anybody want to help? Because it would be super nice and Iâm full >>> with cleaning textEditor and pluggableTextMorph. >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > > > > Guille Polito > > Research Engineer > > Centre de Recherche en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille > > CRIStAL - UMR 9189 > > French National Center for Scientific Research - *http://www.cnrs.fr > <http://www.cnrs.fr>* > > > *Web:* *http://guillep.github.io* <http://guillep.github.io> > > *Phone: *+33 06 52 70 66 13 >

March 19, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #159: Also work with Text as label

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #159 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2921 was integrated: "Also work with Text as label" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2921 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/patch Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

March 19, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #158: 2900-deprecate-whichSelectorsAssign-for-whichSelectorsStoreInto

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #158 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2906 was integrated: "2900-deprecate-whichSelectorsAssign-for-whichSelectorsStoreInto" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2906 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2900 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

March 19, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Weird SUnit/TestRunner behavior

by Max Leske

On 19 Mar 2019, at 16:16, Gabriel Cotelli wrote: > If you don't clean up the instance variables, when you have a lot of > tests > and a test runner is still open on the results all this garbage is > still > referenced (because the test results keeps a reference to the original > test > case instance) and the image keeps growing like crazy. I can tell you > for > my experience that in our case it gets easily to GB-sized images, and > the > GC is not very happy with this. Indeed. > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:04 PM Attila Magyar <m.magyar3(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Max Leske wrote >>> To answer your question: yes that has been the case for a long time. >>> The >>> same is true for #runCase BTW. Only #setUp is sent after #tearDown >>> (see >>> #prepareToRunAgain). >>> >>> Max >> >> That's weird. RunCase sends a setUp, a tearDown and >> cleanUpInstanceVariables. So the test will be executed with >> uninitialized >> instance variables at the second time. Why do we need to clean up the >> instance variables? Or why don't we reinitialize them before running >> the >> test? I understand your grief. My solution: never use #initalize in tests, use #setUp to initialize instance variables. Max >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: >> http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html >> >>

March 19, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Weird SUnit/TestRunner behavior

by Gabriel Cotelli

If you don't clean up the instance variables, when you have a lot of tests and a test runner is still open on the results all this garbage is still referenced (because the test results keeps a reference to the original test case instance) and the image keeps growing like crazy. I can tell you for my experience that in our case it gets easily to GB-sized images, and the GC is not very happy with this. On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:04 PM Attila Magyar <m.magyar3(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Max Leske wrote > > To answer your question: yes that has been the case for a long time. The > > same is true for #runCase BTW. Only #setUp is sent after #tearDown (see > > #prepareToRunAgain). > > > > Max > > That's weird. RunCase sends a setUp, a tearDown and > cleanUpInstanceVariables. So the test will be executed with uninitialized > instance variables at the second time. Why do we need to clean up the > instance variables? Or why don't we reinitialize them before running the > test? > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html > >

March 19, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] Weird SUnit/TestRunner behavior

by Attila Magyar

Max Leske wrote > To answer your question: yes that has been the case for a long time. The > same is true for #runCase BTW. Only #setUp is sent after #tearDown (see > #prepareToRunAgain). > > Max That's weird. RunCase sends a setUp, a tearDown and cleanUpInstanceVariables. So the test will be executed with uninitialized instance variables at the second time. Why do we need to clean up the instance variables? Or why don't we reinitialize them before running the test? -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html

March 19, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #157: 2889-baselineOfTelePharoSupport

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #157 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #2892 was integrated: "2889-baselineOfTelePharoSupport" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2892 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2889 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

March 19, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #156: 2901-ClassBuilder-fillFor-should-not-use-classVariablesString

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #156 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2905 was integrated: "2901-ClassBuilder-fillFor-should-not-use-classVariablesString" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2905 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2901 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

March 19, 2019