- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Instructions for Pharo 6 64bits

by Eliot Miranda

Hi Thierry, On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com > wrote: > Hi Esteban, > > Le 28/10/2016 Ã 11:56, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > >> VM here: http://bintray.com/estebanlm/pharo-vm/build#files/ >> > > What is the difference between the various x86_64 versions? I chose the > itimer one for my tests. The threaded one is the "run external calls in > their own thread" vm? > No. The "threaded" one uses a separate thread for generating the heartbeat. The timer one uses a signal-based interval timer. You want the threaded one. The signal-based implementation causes havoc with external code. Thanks, > > Thierry > _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot

Oct. 29, 2016

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

by Denis Kudriashov

2016-10-29 0:12 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com>: > Because if Kernel packages are tested using mocks it means that to be able > to test the system we need to: > - build bootstrap > - load SUnit > - load mocks > - which will load probably a proxy framework > - then, just then, we are able to load the tests > Actually I am not talk exactly about bootstrap kernel. I mean all system included in Pharo. And while you are against bootstrap part what about the rest of system?

Oct. 29, 2016

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

by Denis Kudriashov

2016-10-28 21:07 GMT+02:00 Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com>: > > You're somehow neglecting how difficult it is to build and maintain the > system as it is. > I am not. > > Because if Kernel packages are tested using mocks it means that to be able > to test the system we need to: > - build bootstrap > - load SUnit > - load mocks > - which will load probably a proxy framework > - then, just then, we are able to load the tests > > Then to know if the system is in a good state, we have to make the > assumption that (and I say make the assumption because we cannot test it > yet at this stage) > - sunit is ok > - the mock library is ok > - and all the mock library dependencies are ok > So adding simple config is problem? As you explain in last TechTalk all difficulties were related to managing dependencies between core packages which were tightly coupled and not designed with this in mind. Mocketry defines all dependencies in config. It's just two projects: StateSpecs and Ghost. And they not require anybody else. (there are separate config groups for GT support). > > It is too much for the kernel. >

Oct. 29, 2016

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

by Denis Kudriashov

2016-10-28 21:07 GMT+02:00 Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com>: > And again i'll hold my position: whoever wants to load it can do it. There >>> is no need to put it there by default. >>> >> Do you know how much easier it would be to design and test FileSystem >> with mocks. Code and tests will be much better and simpler from the >> beginning. >> And I could said it about any package which provide abstractions. >> > >> Now no project which is part of Pharo can use mocks for tests. So it is >> not question of loading it for own project. Pharo contributors can't use >> mocks. >> > > That is not true. People can create mocks by hand. They do not require a > library for easing it. Maybe it is a bit more bureaucratic but it still > works. > Come on, get real. It is not practical sentence. It is *one of* the reason of bad quality and amount of tests in system. People just not write tests when it is difficult. And building custom mock classes is supper slow and boring which moves you away from actual business problems. > > Second, mocks are no silver bullet. they are alright to decouple and try > to test some parts of the system in isolation, but then you still need > integration tests to test how the different components add-up together. > It is all valid and not against any of my point. > >> And there is another story. Imaging Ruby guys join Pharo development (not >> real story :)). Many years In Ruby people use mocks and "human should" >> assertions. >> > > Ruby guys can load the library they prefer. And use it in their projects. > I'm no-one to forbid that, and actually I'd encourage it if that is what > they want. > And when Ruby guy will want to contribute to Pharo you will say him "build mocks by your hands". And he will say many nice words about TDD in Pharo. > > And actually this is what they do in Ruby: if they want a library they > load it. Why in Pharo it cannot be the same for god's sake?? > > Most TDD evolution was from Ruby. I imaging their impression about Pharo >> "the best for TDD". >> > > TDD is not about mocks. TDD is not about tests. TDD is about a way to > approach the design of an application. > Exactly. We all know it. But look at system. Nothing is designed by TDD. Most tests are written after code. And most tests are high level acceptance tests. > And what makes Pharo IMHO "the best for TDD" are not mocks but the > debugger and how we can develop applications with it. > As you said TDD is about design. First we specify design decisions in test. And only then we start implement them. So debugger is only about second part. And Pharo here is the best. But writing specifications in tests is quite limited without advanced mock library. Limited in practical sense. It should be maximum simple technically: if your real object is hard to setup or you not have one then just get mock with minimal effort. Without it TDD process is always interrupted by non business problems. > > >> And generally I would said we have quite bad tests in system. They are >> slow, they corrupt image. Mocks will help to improve this situation. >> > > Yes, but that's not because we do not have mocks. That's because some part > of the system are not designed to be tested (depend on global state), or > because nobody cared of writing good tests. > > **I am 100% sure that people can write bad tests with any mock library > that you want** > And I am 100% sure that people can write spaghetti code with any language that you want. Why use Smalltalk then? P.S. nice post on TDD from Uncle Bob http://blog.cleancoder. com/uncle-bob/2016/03/19/GivingUpOnTDD.html

Oct. 28, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Instructions for Pharo 6 64bits

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

OMG, this thing is for real: A Pharo image using 20 GB virtual memory, about 6/7 GB for real on macOS Sierra, after playing around a bit allocating massive amounts of memory. Pharo in the above screenshot holds two 2 basic inspectors open on two different 1 GB byte arrays, after GC consuming about 2.2 GB. This is a game changer. Yeah ! 2 ** 30 timesRepeat: [ Transcript crShow: 'Thank you !' ]. > On 28 Oct 2016, at 11:56, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > VM here: http://bintray.com/estebanlm/pharo-vm/build#files/ > Image here: http://files.pharo.org/get-files/60/pharo-64.zip > > this is still not official (thatâs why is not in official place) so there are a couple of known problems: > > - version format is different, and that breaks some things in image that depends on it to know what happens > - command line is different and probably youâll need to play a bit with options (one or two dashes). > - UFFI has some failing tests (but most of it works). > > I would appreciate some help to report and/or fix the emerging problems. > > cheers, > Esteban > >> On 28 Oct 2016, at 10:39, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> anybody knows how to get (and test) the 64bits version of the Pharo vm and image? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Thierry >

Oct. 28, 2016

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

by Dale Henrichs

It seems to me that there perhaps needs to be more clarity here ... I think there is perhaps a difference in between "kernel tests should have fewer depencies" and "mocks missing from Pharo". Is "Pharo" and "kernel" synonymous? I imagine that there is a minimal/minimum kernel image that has the kernel and nothing else ... but this kernel image has very little in it and may not even have bare bones development tools ... I also imagine that there is at least one "Pharo minimal" image (perhaps this is the "kernel" that Guille is referring to?) that is the minimum kernel plus the bare minimum of development tools installed ... no bells and whistles, or anything shiny ... this is the base image that developers would use when they want to build an image aimed at their specific needs ... and of course the image is the starting point for the "developer image" ... I also imagine that there is at least one "developer image" that is targeted at developers and this image will be billed as the "recommended developers image" and this image should come with the full suite of development tools and supporting projects to make life easy for most developers so that they don't have to customize their development environment from the get-go. I would think that maintaining the "developer image" would be not that much more complicated than maintaining the 100 or so Contributor builds --- it is built on top of the "Pharo minimal/kernel" image --- all the tests are run, which is the most important thing... Dale On 10/28/2016 11:36 AM, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > > 2016-10-28 18:58 GMT+02:00 Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com > <mailto:guillermopolito@gmail.com>>: > > No, please, kernel test should have the fewer dependencies as > possible! > > I would say this dependency is needed. > > And again i'll hold my position: whoever wants to load it can do > it. There is no need to put it there by default. > > Do you know how much easier it would be to design and test FileSystem > with mocks. Code and tests will be much better and simpler from the > beginning. > And I could said it about any package which provide abstractions. > > Now no project which is part of Pharo can use mocks for tests. So it > is not question of loading it for own project. Pharo contributors > can't use mocks. > > And there is another story. Imaging Ruby guys join Pharo development > (not real story :)). Many years In Ruby people use mocks and "human > should" assertions. Most TDD evolution was from Ruby. I imaging their > impression about Pharo "the best for TDD". > > And generally I would said we have quite bad tests in system. They are > slow, they corrupt image. Mocks will help to improve this situation.

Oct. 28, 2016

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

by Esteban A. Maringolo

2016-10-28 16:07 GMT-03:00 Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com>: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> And there is another story. Imaging Ruby guys join Pharo development (not >> real story :)). Many years In Ruby people use mocks and "human should" >> assertions. > Ruby guys can load the library they prefer. And use it in their projects. > I'm no-one to forbid that, and actually I'd encourage it if that is what > they want. > > And actually this is what they do in Ruby: if they want a library they load > it. Why in Pharo it cannot be the same for god's sake?? +1 to this. We should be able to deliver a minimal core, with the basic features to load external packages. The problem, I suspect, is that project discoverability/installation might not be as straightforward as with a ruby gem, but the integrated catalog eases that in a big extent. Regards! -- Esteban.

Oct. 28, 2016

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

by Guillermo Polito

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 2016-10-28 18:58 GMT+02:00 Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com>: > >> No, please, kernel test should have the fewer dependencies as possible! >> > I would say this dependency is needed. > You're somehow neglecting how difficult it is to build and maintain the system as it is. Because if Kernel packages are tested using mocks it means that to be able to test the system we need to: - build bootstrap - load SUnit - load mocks - which will load probably a proxy framework - then, just then, we are able to load the tests Then to know if the system is in a good state, we have to make the assumption that (and I say make the assumption because we cannot test it yet at this stage) - sunit is ok - the mock library is ok - and all the mock library dependencies are ok It is too much for the kernel. > And again i'll hold my position: whoever wants to load it can do it. There >> is no need to put it there by default. >> > Do you know how much easier it would be to design and test FileSystem with > mocks. Code and tests will be much better and simpler from the beginning. > And I could said it about any package which provide abstractions. > > Now no project which is part of Pharo can use mocks for tests. So it is > not question of loading it for own project. Pharo contributors can't use > mocks. > That is not true. People can create mocks by hand. They do not require a library for easing it. Maybe it is a bit more bureaucratic but it still works. Second, mocks are no silver bullet. they are alright to decouple and try to test some parts of the system in isolation, but then you still need integration tests to test how the different components add-up together. > > And there is another story. Imaging Ruby guys join Pharo development (not > real story :)). Many years In Ruby people use mocks and "human should" > assertions. > Ruby guys can load the library they prefer. And use it in their projects. I'm no-one to forbid that, and actually I'd encourage it if that is what they want. And actually this is what they do in Ruby: if they want a library they load it. Why in Pharo it cannot be the same for god's sake?? Most TDD evolution was from Ruby. I imaging their impression about Pharo > "the best for TDD". > TDD is not about mocks. TDD is not about tests. TDD is about a way to approach the design of an application. And what makes Pharo IMHO "the best for TDD" are not mocks but the debugger and how we can develop applications with it. > And generally I would said we have quite bad tests in system. They are > slow, they corrupt image. Mocks will help to improve this situation. > Yes, but that's not because we do not have mocks. That's because some part of the system are not designed to be tested (depend on global state), or because nobody cared of writing good tests. **I am 100% sure that people can write bad tests with any mock library that you want**

Oct. 28, 2016

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

by Denis Kudriashov

2016-10-28 18:58 GMT+02:00 Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com>: > No, please, kernel test should have the fewer dependencies as possible! > I would say this dependency is needed. > And again i'll hold my position: whoever wants to load it can do it. There > is no need to put it there by default. > Do you know how much easier it would be to design and test FileSystem with mocks. Code and tests will be much better and simpler from the beginning. And I could said it about any package which provide abstractions. Now no project which is part of Pharo can use mocks for tests. So it is not question of loading it for own project. Pharo contributors can't use mocks. And there is another story. Imaging Ruby guys join Pharo development (not real story :)). Many years In Ruby people use mocks and "human should" assertions. Most TDD evolution was from Ruby. I imaging their impression about Pharo "the best for TDD". And generally I would said we have quite bad tests in system. They are slow, they corrupt image. Mocks will help to improve this situation.

Oct. 28, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] GitHub code analytics tools

by Richard Sargent

Dale Henrichs-3 wrote > Guillermo, > > Apparently you don't like the github browser-based code review tool? > > What are your objections? > > Do you know of a better tool that is out in the wild or do you just have > visions that code review could be better? Let me add some thoughts on review tools, not as an argument against anything in this thread, but more like nostalgia for what I have used in the past and would like to see again. What I describe was specifically oriented toward 1:1 peer reviews and self reviews. VA Smalltalk has a difference browser which has the usual browser top panes (in the case of VA, showing Application, Class, and Method lists) and side-by-side bottom panes showing the two versions of the code for the selection in the top panes. It also has a button that allows you to step through the changes, highlighting each successive difference. (It also has substantial room for improvements!) The things I like about it are: - it's live in my image, so all the usual things one can do with Smalltalk are possible - I can easily review other versions of the artefacts - I can jump around to follow related artefacts (e.g., look at a changed method called from the current one or vice versa) - I can *remove artefacts from the lists* as I finish with them so that my browser works as a structured check list and as I eliminate things I can can see what remains and eventually empty the lists, signifying completion - I can modify the changes to correct problems with them and then publish an updated change (or in Git terms a new commit) So, these are some of the characteristics I would like to find in a review tool. > Better tools are always possible, but it is sometimes nice to use a tool > that you didn't have to build from scratch while creating the better > tool:) > > Dale > > On 10/27/2016 05:06 AM, Guillermo Polito wrote: >> I would like to have a good code review tool, before having to do one >> ad-hoc... >> >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Denis Kudriashov >> < > dionisiydk@ > <mailto: > dionisiydk@ > >> wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> With future transition to github I ask myself what tools we will >> have out of the box. >> I google a bit and found these nice service http://ghv.artzub.com. >> Try to search guillep and then pharo-core. It looks really nice. >> >> What other online services you know to analyse github projects? >> >> -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/GitHub-code-analytics-tools-tp4920385p4920581.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 28, 2016