- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

by Sean P. DeNigris

Denis Kudriashov wrote > So you don't need blocks generally. > I thought it was seen in my blog post. I guess I was confused by "Also there is way to get multiple mocks at once: [ :mockA :mockB | "your code here" ] runWithMocks" Denis Kudriashov wrote > all projects are compatible. Great! Denis Kudriashov wrote > But also it makes tests fragile for refactorings Ah, very good point! ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Mocks-are-missing-in-Pharo-from-thread-OSProcess-is-m… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 31, 2016

Let's talk with Dr Metacello: Moving Pharo to Github

by Guillermo Polito

Hi all, We arranged with Dale a public discussion on discord *this wednesday at 8am PDT (15h Paris)*. The idea is to discuss about the alternatives to store the Pharo sources in Git. Dale is already working on git since a couple of years, - he made has already experimented on a project using git submodules [1] - he is managing the GSDevKit/GLASS project in a kind of ad-hoc fashion (from what I understood in the discussion and looking at the repo...) [2] I was analyzing a bit the pros and cons of git submodules and git subtrees [3] The idea is that we discuss about these alternatives, we learn from the experience of Dale, and try to define some points about the architecture of Pharo source-code's storage in the future. See you there, [1] https://github.com/dalehenrich/amber-skeleton [2] https://github.com/GsDevKit/GsDevKit_home [3] https://github.com/guillep/PharoIntegrationProcess/wiki/Analysis-of-sub-pro…

Oct. 31, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

by Denis Kudriashov

2016-10-31 16:40 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > > You can look at features here: > > http://dionisiydk.blogspot.fr/2016/04/new-version-of-mocketry-30.html. > > Ah, yes. I seem to recall one major hurdle for me was that each test needed > everything wrapped in a block. Is that still the case? Could this be hidden > somewhere in the mechanism? It was changed in version 3. Now blocks could be used to easily get multiple mocks (as block arguments) or to validate group of messages. But it is not necessary. You can just work with separate mocks created by "Mock new". So you don't need blocks generally. I thought it was seen in my blog post. > I also wonder whether Mocketry could be easily > integrated with Phexample, as I really love the stacked test concept... > Months ago I committed version of Phexample based on StateSpecs (new config in Phexample repo). So all projects are compatible. > > > Denis Kudriashov wrote > > BabyMock could not be treated as modern mock library just because it uses > > symbols instead of normal message sends. Even C# and Java mocks are based > > on normal messages. > In practice, I don't see why this makes such a big difference. What am I > missing? For me it is just not readable, more code to write. But also it makes tests fragile for refactorings. Try to change signature of method: new argument, remove argument, switch argument places. And tests will be broken (because mocks use symbols and not real messages).

Oct. 31, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

by Dimitris Chloupis

I completely agree, I am all for minimal image and then the user should be able to install anything he/she wants through Catalog Browser, I think we need to make sure that the welcome text clearly illustrate this and that the new user is not confused. But that means that you the people who create project that are not in the main distribution make sure your project is on Catalog Browser and that there is a clear description of what it does. Pharo already an excellent mechanism for installing packages. Just today I tried to install OSC library in Pharo 5 though monticello and configuration and I failed, then I tried the Catalog Browser and worked like a charm. Big thanks to Esteban for this amazing tool is by far my favorite, second being GTSpotter of course ;) On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:50 PM Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > Denis Kudriashov wrote > > You can look at features here: > > http://dionisiydk.blogspot.fr/2016/04/new-version-of-mocketry-30.html. > > Ah, yes. I seem to recall one major hurdle for me was that each test needed > everything wrapped in a block. Is that still the case? Could this be hidden > somewhere in the mechanism? I also wonder whether Mocketry could be easily > integrated with Phexample, as I really love the stacked test concept... > > > Denis Kudriashov wrote > > BabyMock could not be treated as modern mock library just because it uses > > symbols instead of normal message sends. Even C# and Java mocks are based > > on normal messages. > > In practice, I don't see why this makes such a big difference. What am I > missing? > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Mocks-are-missing-in-Pharo-from-thread-OSProcess-is-m… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > >

Oct. 31, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

by Sean P. DeNigris

Denis Kudriashov wrote > You can look at features here: > http://dionisiydk.blogspot.fr/2016/04/new-version-of-mocketry-30.html. Ah, yes. I seem to recall one major hurdle for me was that each test needed everything wrapped in a block. Is that still the case? Could this be hidden somewhere in the mechanism? I also wonder whether Mocketry could be easily integrated with Phexample, as I really love the stacked test concept... Denis Kudriashov wrote > BabyMock could not be treated as modern mock library just because it uses > symbols instead of normal message sends. Even C# and Java mocks are based > on normal messages. In practice, I don't see why this makes such a big difference. What am I missing? ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Mocks-are-missing-in-Pharo-from-thread-OSProcess-is-m… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 31, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] roundTo: strange behavior

by test

oops, make that original number 1.19 in the example. werner

Oct. 31, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] roundTo: strange behavior

by test

Hi, just a simple numerical example using nicolas' implementation: 1.199999999999999999 round: 1. "1.2" i'd guess this result is more or less what a beginner would expect with this line. how would he do it with roundTo:? perhaps this way? 1.199999999999999999 roundTo: 0.1. "1.2000000000000002" i'm not so sure that he would immediately see that he'd need to do it this way: (1.199999999999999999 roundTo: (1/10))asFloat. "1.2" werner

Oct. 31, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

by Denis Kudriashov

2016-10-31 14:23 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > While the bits of a BDD behavioral specification might not be > any different from the average unit test, I've found the mindset they > create > is invaluable to keeping the focus on "what should this object do" instead > of "does it work" (which comes along for free). > I would love to have something more then tests as methods. If tests are documentation then we are managing documentation with only two level of chapters: classes and methods. Not really nice book.

Oct. 31, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

by Denis Kudriashov

Hi Sean. 2016-10-31 14:23 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > p.s. although I don't have a ton of experience with Mocketry, when I > shopped > around for a mock framework, I remember strongly preferring BabyMock (which > I hacked together with Phexample into BabyPhexample; so you get stacked > tests, "should" expectations, and mocks). Maybe in another thread, Denis > might explain why one might prefer Mocketry? > You can look at features here: http://dionisiydk.blogspot.fr/2016/04/new-version-of-mocketry-30.html. BabyMock could not be treated as modern mock library just because it uses symbols instead of normal message sends. Even C# and Java mocks are based on normal messages. But BabyMock implements really nice visualization of objects interaction which probably was main goal for authors. It could be done for Mocketry but with ready to use tools like Roassal. BabyMock implements all visualization by itself.

Oct. 31, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

by Sean P. DeNigris

NorbertHartl wrote > I see no reason if there is a small kernel why it cannot load additional > stuff just for testing. +1. Why would /any/ test framework (including SUnit) be included in the kernel?! And a big +1 to adding mocks to the default test framework, in whatever layer that gets loaded. Philosophical discussions about mocks aside, the programming world (full disclosure: including myself) has embraced them, and their absence seems unnecessarily restrictive and isolationist. While the bits of a BDD behavioral specification might not be any different from the average unit test, I've found the mindset they create is invaluable to keeping the focus on "what should this object do" instead of "does it work" (which comes along for free). I'd say we could use any possible help toward that paradigm shift. Some (many? most?) of our kernel tests seem brittle, duplicative, and, worst of all, of little use as documentation. p.s. although I don't have a ton of experience with Mocketry, when I shopped around for a mock framework, I remember strongly preferring BabyMock (which I hacked together with Phexample into BabyPhexample; so you get stacked tests, "should" expectations, and mocks). Maybe in another thread, Denis might explain why one might prefer Mocketry? ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Mocks-are-missing-in-Pharo-from-thread-OSProcess-is-m… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 31, 2016