- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Maintainer of DependencyAnalyser: Action needed

by marcus.denker＠inria.fr

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. 16, 2016

Maintainer of TxText: action needed

by Marcus Denker

Hi, Whoever maintains TxTxt: there is a fix ready since 19 July 2016. Can we get this into the system, please? https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/18788/TxTextStyler-do-not-work (or we should give up in this being maintained âexternallyâ)

Sept. 16, 2016

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

by stepharo

> Hi, > > I was thinking on the metro way to work, and I also saw that this > discussion is actually split in multiple threads, so it was not easy > to follow :). > > Some of my feelings about this: > > - Pragmas are nice because they are easy to "interpret". Parsing them > is already provided. However, putting expressions or long examples > into them starts to be awkward. It seems it's pushin the syntax too > much, isn't it? > > - Comments are nice because they are ignored! But right now comments > are simple plain text. This thread is to convert *some* comments into > executable examples. But this should be just some comments and not all > of them, am I right? So what happens when we want to have comments > written in Pillar for example? What I mean is that having examples is > just an example of something we would like to do with comments. > > But we can also imagine having comment interpreters. Something like this: > > ">>>PillarDoc > !This is a Pillar title > And I'm just a paragraph > And I can link a class like @Object. > " > > > ">>>ExampleDoc > self assert: '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename equals: > 'gloops.taz' > " > We could have for class comment ">>>UMLDescription UMLClass named: 'Visitor' Arrow from: But this can start to be complex " > What I like from this is that: > - comments that do not specify an interpreter are just plain old > text. Thus backward compatible. > - comments that specify an interpreter that is not present, are just > plain old text. A decoupling as it happens with the settings. > - an ExampleDoc interpreter can be just a test case instance, thus > we could use assertions instead of special >>> messages. I do not know because all the comments should be pillar compatible. If you do not use pillar commands you just get plain text. You see we can easily detect comment too: if a text contains >>> then it is a doc Then ExampleDoc is an extra syntax. I'm not found with the self assert: because it feels like something coming out of nowhere. We will have to explain: yes self is bound to an instance of the testCase... and to me this is implementation details: if I give expr1 and expr2 the implementation can build self assert: expr1 equals: expr2 I liked the simplicity of nicolai' solution I would just have a comment and a message >>> so that we => nearly no syntax change => something really lightweight and optional What I care is that - we get simple examples right in the method - one line no more. - that these examples are correct and always validated (I do not see them as tests), their values is more in the correct documentation than the tests. They are basic output. I do not want to have full code in the method, in that case this should go one class side example or plain tests. > > Things that would require more thought: > - there is an overlap between these interpreted comments and > pragmas... There are for sure cases that solutions can be imagined > with both. I do not think that expressions can fit inside pragmas > - there is an overlap between examples and test cases. I saw many > people that argued that already. I am not against examples, but I > think we should (whichever implementation is chosen) draw a line and > set some guidelines. To me I do not care that they are tests. Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated. I do not expect to run them but the system can garantee that they are correct. > Stef, probably you have already in mind when you want a test case and > when an example and what's the distance. It would be good if we can > transform that implicit thought in something explicit (maybe even a > lint rule in the future?) I do not get what you mean here. For me a test is a scenario. If I do that and that then this happens a test can use a class example Now for me a test should not rely one a online part of method comment. These onliners are just make the method comments better. > > Guille > > -------- Original Message -------- >> >> Hi nicolai >> >> >> I was thinking that I would prefer to have >> >> >> "` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.`" >> >> >> instead of >> ` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.` <- >> suceeds, no output >> >> So that we can use ` in the future in plain code. >> Also it has the advantage that it is backward compatible. >> >> Else we could have >> >> `` >> But I do not know. >> >> Tell me what you think. >> >> I would love to browse the complete system to convert existing one >> liner with such >> >> Stef >> >>> >>> Ok, this is a quick hack ( do not look at the code :), yes using >>> regex here is a bit fragil) >>> >>> You can add code in comments between backticks (`) >>> The formatter will highlight the text like smalltalk code (or not if >>> it is not valid code). >>> + an icon styler with an icon showing a warning icon for faulty code >>> or an information icon otherwise >>> you can click on the icon, >>> >>> if the code is an association >>> >>> expression -> result >>> >>> it executes the expression and compares it with the result, (with >>> assert:equals: ) opens debugger if it fails and does >>> nothing otherwise >>> >>> if the code is just an expression, it opens an inspector. >>> >>> This is just one way to do some tests and experiments with this >>> idea, don 't yet know if this is a good idea or if >>> we can / should find a better way to connect code with examples. >>> >>> first result, I find expressions in comments, highlighted as code, >>> confusing :) >>> >>> (file in attached cs in a recent pharo 6.0 and look at the method >>> AbstractFileReference>>#baseName . Or >>> add an expression with backticks in a method comment >>> ` your code here ` >>> >>> >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> >> >

Sept. 16, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Author / TestRunner interaction in fresh image

by Marcus Denker

> On 16 Sep 2016, at 12:43, Nicolas Passerini <npasserini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I think it would be nice to be able to run tests in background. > The easiest is to start multiple imagesâ¦ this way they can destroy whatever without impacting you. I think Guille has something in preparationâ¦ The nice aspect of this is that it runs really in parallel. Marcus

Sept. 16, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Author / TestRunner interaction in fresh image

by Nicolas Passerini

I think it would be nice to be able to run tests in background. What would be the problem? A test case that fails because you were doing something at the same time? I think it is not so serious, it is up to you to know which tests did you run and do nothing that would conflict with the test run. Now you can't do anything. On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 2016-09-15 18:46 GMT+02:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>: > >> > would itself seem to a big impediment. It would be good if "Author" >> > was dependent on the context of the call chain. This would seem a >> > requirement for one day having two people working in the one Image (is >> > this a possible use case where someone is using a remote debugger >> > while another person is using the standard UI?) >> > >> Could it be part of Denis new ExecutionEnvironment concept? > > > It could be used here but I think such problem is more complex. Most parts > of system is not implemented with concurrency in mind. >

Sept. 16, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Author / TestRunner interaction in fresh image

by Denis Kudriashov

2016-09-15 18:46 GMT+02:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>: > > would itself seem to a big impediment. It would be good if "Author" > > was dependent on the context of the call chain. This would seem a > > requirement for one day having two people working in the one Image (is > > this a possible use case where someone is using a remote debugger > > while another person is using the standard UI?) > > > Could it be part of Denis new ExecutionEnvironment concept? It could be used here but I think such problem is more complex. Most parts of system is not implemented with concurrency in mind.

Sept. 16, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Author / TestRunner interaction in fresh image

by Denis Kudriashov

Hi. 2016-09-15 18:38 GMT+02:00 Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com>: > The question arises in this particular case due to... > RPackageMonticelloSynchronisationTest >> setUp > ... > Author fullName ifNil: [ Author fullName: 'Tester' ]. > > Minor point... this check actually is a bit pointless since #fullName > invokes #requestFullName that presents the dialog. And #fullName will > *never* return nil. At a minimum it returns 'Anonymous'. > > First step would seem to be wrapping TestCase>>runCase: > with Author useAuthor: 'TestRunner' during: [ .... ] > Now with introduction of ExecutionEnvironment we could delegate this behaviour to it. So DefaultExecutionEnvironment will perform regular UI request but TestExecutionEnvironment will set up special "TestRunner name". We could define CurrentExecutionEnvironment>>systemUser to hide this logic

Sept. 16, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] [pharo-project/pharo-core] edd9f3: 60220

by Ben Coman

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2016-09-16 8:54 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: >> >> >>> Furthermore, typical examples require more than one liners, and these >>> should be factored out separately. >> >> >> I really like the one liners that you can find im some method comments, >> like in Color class>>#wheel: >> if you are new to pharo and start exploring the system, it makes fun to >> see these little one lines and >> just execute it. (even if they aren't onelines like in some method in >> class Form). >> >> >> Me too and what I like is that there are coupled to the method. >> I find a method and I guess it will help me >> and bam I read the example and I'm sure it is or not what I'm looking for. > > > My belief is that we have an IDE able to track metadata (here, examples) > along with methods, and that there is no need to play with syntax extensions > (which are a way of adding metadata to programming languages stuck in the > file concept of the 60's). > > In short, a nice, OO way of adding information about a method / class / tag > / package that the IDE knows how to relate to the code. > > Having the class comment pane open in Nautilus is already a step towards > doing that. So another way to look at keeping example/tests close to the methods is for the Browser code pane to have tabs [Source] [Examples] [Tests] [Class Comment] where maybe [Tests] lists every test containing the selection from the method pane. Adding these same to GTDebugger (which already has a [Source] tab) would improve inter-tool consistency. Spare vertical space for the code-pane tabs might be obtained if the <claass> button is replaced by a class/instance treeview protocol-pane tree view, then <Class> button goes away, the <Hier.> button could move above the class-pane leaving a spare row for the code pane tabs to sit. Attached is a rough mockup. cheers -ben

Sept. 16, 2016

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

by Esteban Lorenzano

> On 16 Sep 2016, at 10:02, Guille Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I was thinking on the metro way to work, and I also saw that this discussion is actually split in multiple threads, so it was not easy to follow :). > > Some of my feelings about this: > > - Pragmas are nice because they are easy to "interpret". Parsing them is already provided. However, putting expressions or long examples into them starts to be awkward. It seems it's pushin the syntax too much, isn't it? > > - Comments are nice because they are ignored! But right now comments are simple plain text. This thread is to convert *some* comments into executable examples. But this should be just some comments and not all of them, am I right? So what happens when we want to have comments written in Pillar for example? What I mean is that having examples is just an example of something we would like to do with comments. > > But we can also imagine having comment interpreters. Something like this: > > ">>>PillarDoc > !This is a Pillar title > And I'm just a paragraph > And I can link a class like @Object. > " > > > ">>>ExampleDoc > self assert: '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename equals: 'gloops.taz' > " > > What I like from this is that: > - comments that do not specify an interpreter are just plain old text. Thus backward compatible. > - comments that specify an interpreter that is not present, are just plain old text. A decoupling as it happens with the settings. > - an ExampleDoc interpreter can be just a test case instance, thus we could use assertions instead of special >>> messages. > > Things that would require more thought: > - there is an overlap between these interpreted comments and pragmas... There are for sure cases that solutions can be imagined with both. > - there is an overlap between examples and test cases. I saw many people that argued that already. I am not against examples, but I think we should (whichever implementation is chosen) draw a line and set some guidelines. Stef, probably you have already in mind when you want a test case and when an example and what's the distance. It would be good if we can transform that implicit thought in something explicit (maybe even a lint rule in the future?) +1 to all :) Esteban > > Guille > > -------- Original Message -------- >> Hi nicolai >> >> >> I was thinking that I would prefer to have >> >> "` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.`" >> >> >> instead of >> ` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.` <- suceeds, no output >> >> So that we can use ` in the future in plain code. >> Also it has the advantage that it is backward compatible. >> >> Else we could have >> >> `` >> But I do not know. >> >> Tell me what you think. >> >> I would love to browse the complete system to convert existing one liner with such >> >> Stef >> >>> >>> Ok, this is a quick hack ( do not look at the code :), yes using regex here is a bit fragil) >>> >>> You can add code in comments between backticks (`) >>> The formatter will highlight the text like smalltalk code (or not if it is not valid code). >>> + an icon styler with an icon showing a warning icon for faulty code or an information icon otherwise >>> you can click on the icon, >>> >>> if the code is an association >>> >>> expression -> result >>> >>> it executes the expression and compares it with the result, (with assert:equals: ) opens debugger if it fails and does >>> nothing otherwise >>> >>> if the code is just an expression, it opens an inspector. >>> >>> This is just one way to do some tests and experiments with this idea, don 't yet know if this is a good idea or if >>> we can / should find a better way to connect code with examples. >>> >>> first result, I find expressions in comments, highlighted as code, confusing :) >>> >>> (file in attached cs in a recent pharo 6.0 and look at the method AbstractFileReference>>#baseName . Or >>> add an expression with backticks in a method comment >>> ` your code here ` >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> >> >

Sept. 16, 2016

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

by Serge Stinckwich

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I think this is an interesting idea. > > However, one thing to keep in mind is that one reason why these solutions exist is because they assume no UI environment. Thus, the only thing they have is text and the solution is built around it. > > In Pharo, we can think of concatenating information in the environment. If we have a casual connection between examples and the code they exemplify, the interface can provide all this information at the same time. The advantage here is that the syntax remains simple. > > At the same time, we also want to have Pillar more thoroughly supported in our tools. Could it be that we could extend Pillar to support literate programming? Just I backup this idea. You should have a look to http://orgmode.org/ with babel mode that allows to mix different programming languages in the same document: http://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/ Lot of ideas should be borrowed for doing a better Pillar I guess. The only problem of org-mode is that you don't have the link to the live environment that we are used to. Having a org-mode clone in Pharo (i.e Pillar+++) would be great. At the same time, this is a long term solution. We also need an immediate solution like the one proposed by StÃ©phane. Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

Sept. 16, 2016