- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[pharo-project/pharo-core]

by GitHub

Branch: refs/tags/60231 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core

Sept. 19, 2016

[pharo-project/pharo-core] 23300c: 60231

by GitHub

Branch: refs/heads/6.0 Home: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core Commit: 23300c3292cdc36a28259beb4528f8a1ee587bd8 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-core/commit/23300c3292cdc36a28259beb… Author: Jenkins Build Server <board(a)pharo-project.org> Date: 2016-09-19 (Mon, 19 Sep 2016) Changed paths: M DebuggerModel.package/DebugSession.class/instance/logging/logStackToFileIfNeeded.st M Reflectivity-Tools.package/Breakpoint.class/instance/install/install.st M Reflectivity-Tools.package/Breakpoint.class/instance/install/remove.st M Reflectivity-Tools.package/CounterIconStyler.class/instance/defaults/iconBlock_.st R ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script60230.st A ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - scripts/script60231.st R ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update60230.st A ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/pharo - updates/update60231.st M ScriptLoader60.package/ScriptLoader.class/instance/public/commentForCurrentUpdate.st Log Message: ----------- 60231 19110 DNU on menu counter https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19110 19091 Problem adding breakpoint through suggestions https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19091 19108 Logging error stack should not hang image and prevent opening debugger https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19108 http://files.pharo.org/image/60/60231.zip

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Call for design for a literal programming doc similar to PythonDocTest

by Nicolai Hess

2016-09-19 10:33 GMT+02:00 ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> > On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:37 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> > >> > + 1 >> > >> > Changing the language metamodel for simple validated comments is a huge >> effort for nothing. >> > Clement is good at VM level but not at other level :) >> >> I think there is a misunderstanding :). I do not see any implication to >> the language meta-model in the remark of Clement. >> >> In fact, I expressed exactly the same opinion, that the design of things >> like PythonDoc comes from the fact that those people do not rely on an IDE, >> so their design focuses on the only thing they have: source code. Clement >> remarked that we already have SUnit tests and he suggested that we could >> just enhance the IDE to present them next to the methods. This might >> actually be less straightforward with SUnit because it was not made for >> preserving links to the code, but it can work out of the box with something >> like GTExamples. >> > > Yes, the language meta-model is already too complex in Pharo IMHO, let's > not make it even more complex. I should have precised that's not what I > meant if this was not obvious to everyone. > > *1. Method docs with examples, so a user can see an example usage of a > method (sunit test methods sometimes aren't good "examples")* > *2. We already had (and still have) some method docs where the example > code just won't work anymore because the methods or classes used* > > Nicolai, > > I'm suggesting to show the SUnit test code (or example code, or whatever) > next to the method, and being able to create a unit test this way instead > of only the existing green/red button and the "browse tests" entry in the > right click menu. For existing methods having in their comment executable > code to test how they work (as you mentioned), the code can just be moved > to the test shown in the pane next to it (through a script discovering all > cases like that or manually). > > The example usage would still be shown next to the code for the user, > except it would already be under version control as existing SUnit tests > are, it can now have syntax coloring which is not present in comments, it's > automatically executed by each Pharo build through SUnit hence detecting > regressions and the meta-model is not getting more complex at all. As Tudor > said, it's only about IDE changes. > > I believe that some SUnit tests are sometimes not good examples because > they're higher level tests (application tests, business tests) while as for > python doctests it's only relevant to show unit tests next to the method > the unit test validates. Currently I believe Nautilus discovers tests and > add the green/red button based on name conventions. Foo>>bar has this > feature if FooTests>>testBar is implemented. So it's either a matter of > improving this heuristic or educating the community with this existing name > convention. In any case, I don't think it's more changes for the user than > having to learn convention in the comments/pragmas. > > Yes, we should d some experiments with different solutions and see what works. I like the simplicity of having code in comments, at the moment I don't like when we use the code highlighter, because this looks a bit confusing. I would like a better link between methods and sunit tests, too. I still don't think that unit tests can fully replace code examples. And having a possibility to validate the code from method comments would be nice. For example, some time ago there were some examples in Color methods like wheel: thisMany "Return a collection of thisMany colors evenly spaced around the color wheel." "Color showColors: (Color wheel: 12)" the method #showColors: was long gone, so I replaced the comment to use #inspect instead. But this code example is not about validation, a unit test would look like self assert:(Color wheel: 12) equals: {(Color r: 0.7000000000000001 g: 0.07 b: 0.07 alpha: 1.0). (Color r: 0.7000000000000001 .....} This code example is about a simple usage: "how would Color wheel:12 look like ? Ha just inspect the result and see yourself" And having a way to detect when the code example "Color showColors: .." doesn't work anymore because the method was removed, or if the Code example "(CompiledMethod compiledMethodAt: #author) author" doesn't work anymore because the method was moved from CompiledMethod to Compiled code ;-) would be nice. Yes maybe we can find another way to link real example code (not code in comments) to the actual method with better tool support, but we can not cover this with unit tests style methods alone. Even a simple example like: 'pharo' capitalized " >>> 'Pharo'" this reads better than self assert:'pharo' capitalized equals:'Pharo' Ok, it is not that bad to understand the usage of 'capitalized', its iput and output from this unit test, but not all unit tests are written like that. Some tests are mostly about testing corner cases or an implementation detail, or other code that isn't even considered to be used outside of the test. So, yes, we should do some more experiments and see. > > > > >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> > Stef >> > >> > Le 16/9/16 Ã 14:18, Denis Kudriashov a Ã©crit : >> >> >> >> 2016-09-16 13:42 GMT+02:00 ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>: >> >> Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with >> the test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's >> code ? >> >> >> >> You're saying: >> >> Their values is active documentation that can be automatically >> validated. >> >> That can also be applied to test we've already had with SUnit. If the >> only difference you want is to display the test next to the method, then >> it's an IDE problem, nothing has to be changed but the IDE. >> >> >> >> In python they have no other choices than putting tests in comments >> because their IDE is a text editor, they cannot create other panes or >> anything like that. >> >> >> >> It is of course true. But Stef suggestion is really much much simpler. >> It is just convention how to write examples inside comments. Then tools >> could work with them and Nicolai already provide simple extension for >> Nautilus. >> >> We already has a lot of comments with examples inside. Making them >> discoverable and testable will be nice. >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> www.feenk.com >> >> "Yesterday is a fact. >> Tomorrow is a possibility. >> Today is a challenge." >> >> >> >> >> >> >

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] updated FastTable

by Tudor Girba

Hi Nicolai, > On Sep 19, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 2016-09-18 23:52 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > Hi, > > I just noticed that the most recent changes to FastTable that were present in Pharo60 were not in the main repo of estebanlm/FastTable. > > This caused anything that depended on the development version of FastTable to break the MessageBrowser. > > I pushed the latest version from Pharo60/main in the estebanlm/FastTable, and things look fine now. > > Cheers, > Doru > > Uh, yes, I reviewed issue 18606 but forgot that this would touch an external project. > Thank you Doru. No problem at all. Doru > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Don't give to get. Just give." > > > > > > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "In a world where everything is moving ever faster, one might have better chances to win by moving slower."

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] updated FastTable

by Nicolai Hess

2016-09-18 23:52 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > Hi, > > I just noticed that the most recent changes to FastTable that were present > in Pharo60 were not in the main repo of estebanlm/FastTable. > > This caused anything that depended on the development version of FastTable > to break the MessageBrowser. > > I pushed the latest version from Pharo60/main in the estebanlm/FastTable, > and things look fine now. > > Cheers, > Doru > Uh, yes, I reviewed issue 18606 but forgot that this would touch an external project. Thank you Doru. > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Don't give to get. Just give." > > > > > > > >

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Interrupting process which hangs on recursion

by Denis Kudriashov

2016-09-19 10:44 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > Great work, Denis! > > We have to look at how the GTDebugger works with large stacks. Could you > please open an issue for that? > Done 19109 <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19109/GTDebugger-produces-too-much-contex…>

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Maintainer of DependencyAnalyser: Action needed

by Christophe Demarey

Didnât we switch to the strategy integrate first into Pharo and notify maintainer afterwards? It is hard to follow because sometimes integration goes directly into Pharo with slices and other time, it is included through configurations. I will produce a new version of the config and update the issue. > Le 16 sept. 2016 Ã 13:25, marcus.denker(a)inria.fr a Ã©crit : > > Whoever maintains DependencyAnalyser: There is a fix ready since 22 August 2016. > > We need to get this into the system *soon*. > > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/18963/DANode-browseClass-sends-unimplemen… > > > Marcus

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Interrupting process which hangs on recursion

by Tudor Girba

Great work, Denis! We have to look at how the GTDebugger works with large stacks. Could you please open an issue for that? Cheers, Doru > On Sep 19, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > So I opened this case 19108 and submitted slice which restricts logging time to 100 milliseconds. (it should be enough, look at issue explanation). > > But also there is some problem with GTDebugger which talk with full stack items instead of visible ones. It slowdown opening on big stack (which is usual for recursion cases). > To see problem just open in browser Context>>sender and put counter on sender variable (from suggestion menu). Also disable stack logging by "DebugSession logDebuggerStackToFile: false". > > Now execute "1 recursionTest" from workspace and after 3 seconds press cmd+.. You will see 11610 calls of "context sender". Interesting that with SpecDebugger it is just 42 calls. > > > 2016-08-16 11:30 GMT+02:00 Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com>: > >> On 16 Aug 2016, at 10:11, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> 2016-08-14 10:19 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: >> But the slowness comes from printing a too large stack, no ? >> Why not just limit the size of the stack being printed ? >> >> Maybe it is better to limit time which could be spend on log writing. Sometime I guess writing to log itself raises errors and recursions which could be another reason for non working cmd+.. >> We could limit it for 1 second. And if it is not enough then append extra ~20 contexts from root which will show reason for possible recursion (also limited in time). What you think? > > That sounds like too much magic to me... > > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't."

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Interrupting process which hangs on recursion

by Denis Kudriashov

So I opened this case 19108 <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/19108/Logging-error-stack-should-not-hang…> and submitted slice which restricts logging time to 100 milliseconds. (it should be enough, look at issue explanation). But also there is some problem with GTDebugger which talk with full stack items instead of visible ones. It slowdown opening on big stack (which is usual for recursion cases). To see problem just open in browser Context>>sender and put counter on sender variable (from suggestion menu). Also disable stack logging by "DebugSession logDebuggerStackToFile: false". Now execute "1 recursionTest" from workspace and after 3 seconds press cmd+.. You will see 11610 calls of "context sender". Interesting that with SpecDebugger it is just 42 calls. 2016-08-16 11:30 GMT+02:00 Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com>: > > On 16 Aug 2016, at 10:11, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2016-08-14 10:19 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: > >> But the slowness comes from printing a too large stack, no ? >> Why not just limit the size of the stack being printed ? >> > > Maybe it is better to limit time which could be spend on log writing. > Sometime I guess writing to log itself raises errors and recursions which > could be another reason for non working cmd+.. > We could limit it for 1 second. And if it is not enough then append extra > ~20 contexts from root which will show reason for possible recursion (also > limited in time). What you think? > > > That sounds like too much magic to me... > >

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Call for design for a literal programming doc similar to PythonDocTest

by ClÃ©ment Bera

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:37 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > > > + 1 > > > > Changing the language metamodel for simple validated comments is a huge > effort for nothing. > > Clement is good at VM level but not at other level :) > > I think there is a misunderstanding :). I do not see any implication to > the language meta-model in the remark of Clement. > > In fact, I expressed exactly the same opinion, that the design of things > like PythonDoc comes from the fact that those people do not rely on an IDE, > so their design focuses on the only thing they have: source code. Clement > remarked that we already have SUnit tests and he suggested that we could > just enhance the IDE to present them next to the methods. This might > actually be less straightforward with SUnit because it was not made for > preserving links to the code, but it can work out of the box with something > like GTExamples. > Yes, the language meta-model is already too complex in Pharo IMHO, let's not make it even more complex. I should have precised that's not what I meant if this was not obvious to everyone. *1. Method docs with examples, so a user can see an example usage of a method (sunit test methods sometimes aren't good "examples")* *2. We already had (and still have) some method docs where the example code just won't work anymore because the methods or classes used* Nicolai, I'm suggesting to show the SUnit test code (or example code, or whatever) next to the method, and being able to create a unit test this way instead of only the existing green/red button and the "browse tests" entry in the right click menu. For existing methods having in their comment executable code to test how they work (as you mentioned), the code can just be moved to the test shown in the pane next to it (through a script discovering all cases like that or manually). The example usage would still be shown next to the code for the user, except it would already be under version control as existing SUnit tests are, it can now have syntax coloring which is not present in comments, it's automatically executed by each Pharo build through SUnit hence detecting regressions and the meta-model is not getting more complex at all. As Tudor said, it's only about IDE changes. I believe that some SUnit tests are sometimes not good examples because they're higher level tests (application tests, business tests) while as for python doctests it's only relevant to show unit tests next to the method the unit test validates. Currently I believe Nautilus discovers tests and add the green/red button based on name conventions. Foo>>bar has this feature if FooTests>>testBar is implemented. So it's either a matter of improving this heuristic or educating the community with this existing name convention. In any case, I don't think it's more changes for the user than having to learn convention in the comments/pragmas. > Cheers, > Doru > > > > Stef > > > > Le 16/9/16 Ã 14:18, Denis Kudriashov a Ã©crit : > >> > >> 2016-09-16 13:42 GMT+02:00 ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>: > >> Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with the > test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ? > >> > >> You're saying: > >> Their values is active documentation that can be automatically > validated. > >> That can also be applied to test we've already had with SUnit. If the > only difference you want is to display the test next to the method, then > it's an IDE problem, nothing has to be changed but the IDE. > >> > >> In python they have no other choices than putting tests in comments > because their IDE is a text editor, they cannot create other panes or > anything like that. > >> > >> It is of course true. But Stef suggestion is really much much simpler. > It is just convention how to write examples inside comments. Then tools > could work with them and Nicolai already provide simple extension for > Nautilus. > >> We already has a lot of comments with examples inside. Making them > discoverable and testable will be nice. > >> > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Yesterday is a fact. > Tomorrow is a possibility. > Today is a challenge." > > > > > >

Sept. 19, 2016