- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Vm-dev] Re: thisContext usecases

by Igor Stasenko

On 10 July 2013 00:03, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 9 July 2013 10:15, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hello pharoers, >> > >> > Recently I have been looking at the Pharo thisContext capabilities, in order >> > to perhaps one day in the far future edit its implementation with the Pharo >> > dev team. Nothing is planned or confirmed, it is just to discuss. >> > >> > A context has instances variables (method closureOrNil receiver stackp >> > sender pc) and holds the arguments and temporaries. >> > >> > Now I'd like to know what context's state do we modify, and what states are >> > just internal representations ? >> > >> > For example, it seems that you can do 'thisContext receiver: #foo', but you >> > cannot with Cog. >> > >> > SomeClass>>foo >> > thisContext receiver: #foo. >> > ^ self >> > >> > In workspace, evaluating: >> > 1 to: 5 do: [:i | Transcript show: SomeClass new foo ] >> > >> > Transcript result (with Cog): >> > foo >> > foo >> > a SomeClass >> > a SomeClass >> > a SomeClass >> > >> > Transcript result (with Stack or Vanilla): >> > foo >> > foo >> > foo >> > foo >> > foo >> > >> > Now as no one has ever complained, I guess this feature is not used. >> > >> > As far as I know, the real use cases of the context seems to be: >> > - setting and gettings temporaries >> > - setting and getting the sender of a context >> > - setting and getting the pc >> > - getting method, closureOrNil, receiver, stackp, arguments but NOT setting >> > them >> > >> > Now setting the sender of a context seems to be used only in two cases: >> > - continuations (as seaside continuations) >> > - exception implementation >> > >> > So imagine that in the future you would have a context that can be accessed >> > in read-only, where you could only: >> > - set the temporaries (but not arguments) >> > - set the pc (or something equivalent, as set the currently executed ast >> > node) >> > - use continuations (exceptions can be implemented on top of continuations) >> > >> > I would like to know if there are things that you do now and that you would >> > not be able to do with a context like that. For non meta developer (like >> > enterprise app developer) I guess it will not change anything, but I want to >> > know if you implemented a framework as seaside, does it requires other >> > things from the context and why ? >> > >> >> To my thinking playing with pc is awfully evil, it should be >> read-only, only to allow debugger >> to map it to source code. Same goes for stack pointer. > > > There are good uses for this I just used it to implement basic-block coverage for methods. One can use it for exception handling (mustBeBoolean etc). I'm always wary of introducing restrictions when the system has worked fine without them for years. One exception recently was in adding bounds checking to CompiledMethod>>at:put: so one could not change arbitrary bytes in the literals via at:put:. But this was adding safety, not adding a restriction. I see no harm in allowing one to assign the pc. It is unsafe, and the system will likely crash if you get it wrong. But it is also potentially useful (e.g. I've used it to do a prototype of tail-recursion elimination). So let's be laissez faire, unless the freedoms in question really do only do harm. > Apparently one should know what he doing, when assigning to context's pc. And that's the reason why it considered 'evil' :) To me this is strange way to program: context just reflecting activation of your program, so if you changing pc, you changing the flow of your program. Isn't it would be wiser in such case to just change the original program to make it behave like you want, instead of hacking it via setting context's pc? Of course, there is exceptions like tail-recursion elimination, which you cannot implement by changing code in your program. > >> >> >> Setting receiver is less evil and it may work, if receiver belongs to >> same inheritance chain >> as compiled method's class. But it should not be set without checking this. >> >> And for method's temps, it is fine. >> >> > Thanks for answering, >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > > > > -- > best, > Eliot > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

July 10, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] should:raise:description:

by Camille Teruel

On 10 juil. 2013, at 11:24, Camillo Bruni wrote: > > On 2013-07-10, at 08:05, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 09.07.2013, at 23:28, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 2013-07-09, at 21:23, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9 July 2013 19:45, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> I continue my rant with should:raise:description: >>>>> >>>>> a) self should: [ Error signal: 'error message' ] raise: Halt description: 'message'. >>>>> b) self should: [ 1 + 2 ] raise: Halt description: 'message'. >>>>> >>>>> In the first case you do not get the 'message' but 'error message'. >>>>> In the second case you get the 'message'. >>>>> >>>>> Does the description make sense in this case? >>>>> 1. if you signal Halt everything is fine >>>>> 2. Every other case is a failure >>>>> 3. In case a) an internal failure happens so the test fails anyway, fine, but no description >>>>> 4. A strange? case where the tests actually DO pass but we nevertheless want to print a description. >>>>> >>>>> Can anybody give me a convincing case for 4? >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, after this I will stop :D >>>> >>>> In case (a) I would actually expect to see something like: "message. >>>> Unexpected Error raised: 'error message'". >>>> >>>> In case (b) I'd want to see "message: no Halt raised" >>>> >>>> I can't think of why you would want a description for a success case, >>>> so #4 just seems weird! >>> >>> exactly! :) I agree on that ;). Now the question is on how to properly fix this >>> for debugging. Since you actually want to debug on the unexpected Exception in >>> case a)... >> >> >> YESSSS!! That's about the thing I hate the most about SUnit: if a testrun fails because #should: fails, the signaler context is gone. That's SO ANNYOING! > > I managed to solve this by added Exception >> #signalIn: aContext, like that I can signal > an AssertionFailure with the proper error message in place of the original error. so you get > 1) a proper error message in the debugger and test output > 2) the debugger opens at the very place the original exception was signaled :) Excellent !! Have you checked that it doesn't break the create button in case of DNU?

July 10, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] should:raise:description:

by Camillo Bruni

On 2013-07-10, at 08:05, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 09.07.2013, at 23:28, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 2013-07-09, at 21:23, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9 July 2013 19:45, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I continue my rant with should:raise:description: >>>> >>>> a) self should: [ Error signal: 'error message' ] raise: Halt description: 'message'. >>>> b) self should: [ 1 + 2 ] raise: Halt description: 'message'. >>>> >>>> In the first case you do not get the 'message' but 'error message'. >>>> In the second case you get the 'message'. >>>> >>>> Does the description make sense in this case? >>>> 1. if you signal Halt everything is fine >>>> 2. Every other case is a failure >>>> 3. In case a) an internal failure happens so the test fails anyway, fine, but no description >>>> 4. A strange? case where the tests actually DO pass but we nevertheless want to print a description. >>>> >>>> Can anybody give me a convincing case for 4? >>>> >>>> Sorry, after this I will stop :D >>> >>> In case (a) I would actually expect to see something like: "message. >>> Unexpected Error raised: 'error message'". >>> >>> In case (b) I'd want to see "message: no Halt raised" >>> >>> I can't think of why you would want a description for a success case, >>> so #4 just seems weird! >> >> exactly! :) I agree on that ;). Now the question is on how to properly fix this >> for debugging. Since you actually want to debug on the unexpected Exception in >> case a)... > > > YESSSS!! That's about the thing I hate the most about SUnit: if a testrun fails because #should: fails, the signaler context is gone. That's SO ANNYOING! I managed to solve this by added Exception >> #signalIn: aContext, like that I can signal an AssertionFailure with the proper error message in place of the original error. so you get 1) a proper error message in the debugger and test output 2) the debugger opens at the very place the original exception was signaled :)

July 10, 2013

[regression reporter]regression occurred

by no-reply＠ci.inria.fr

https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-3.0-Update-Step-2-Validation/label=linu… 1 regressions found. Tests.CodeImport.ChunkImportTestCase.testImportAClassCategory

July 10, 2013

[update 3.0] #30262

by Marcus Denker

30262 ----- 11089 Update Zn+Zdc July 2013 https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/11089

July 10, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Some Spec questions

by ClÃ©ment Bera

Hello, So in the current spec debugger, the receiver's inspector widget is changed dynamically. Even if it looks like the same because it is always an inspector, it is not the same widget (could be any subclass of EyeInspector depending on receiver's type). So it is possible to change the main debugger spec dynamically object side. To change dynamically you have to do something like: MyClass class>>myDynamicLayout <spec> ^ SpecLayout composed add: #aModel; yourself MyClass>>changeLayoutDynamically self buildWithSpec: #myDynamicLayout. Then you can add: aComposableModel needRebuild: false on some widgets not to rebuild them and to speed up the spec generation. However, as this was too slow to do it for the full debugger (in the case of the receiver inspector), an inspectorWrapper class was made so the debugger has fixed spec and only the inspector wrapper spec changed. Depending on how often you change the toolbar, you may need to do something similar, even if it's a bit overly complex. You can have a look at inspectorWrapper, in Pharo 3.0. (InspectorWrapper>>updateInspectorFrom:) Hope it helped you, 2013/7/10 Andrei Vasile Chis <chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com> > > > Hi folks, while working on the new debugger, I've come up with some >> questions... >> > >> > *is there any other implementation for dynamic widgets other that the >> current one? >> >> I do not get your question ... >> > > > This is related to my previous question about dynamic spec, if it's > possible to define the layout of > a widget on the object side. > > >> >> > >> > *right now the toolbar is a static widget, and I would like to have a >> dynamic one to filter out the actions that should not be available (which >> are a subset of the default ones). Would it make sense to regenerate the >> toolbar everytime the selection changes? Is there any other approach I >> should consider? >> >> It may make sense to dynamically regenerate the toolbar (or at least >> remove only what needs to be removed, add only what needs to be added). >> Then you should also think in term of user experience. Having things >> changing may be disturbing and counter productive :) > > > Right now our use case are post mortem contexts (that do not have a > process attached). In there case only few actions make sense. > The current debugger sets the toolbar at the creation of the debugger. If > the context turns post mortem during debugging the actions should also > change. Now the question would be if this is actually possible? > > >

July 10, 2013

Jenkins build is back to stable : Pharo-2.0-Tests Â» run 1,vm,win #259

by no-reply＠ci.inria.fr

See <https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-2.0-Tests/Run=run%201,VM=vm,label=win/2…>

July 10, 2013

[update 2.0] #20612

by Marcus Denker

20612 ----- 10569 Backport 2.0: Better Interrruptionche https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/10569 10940 Backport 2.0: 10925 Use caching in Gofer https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/10940 Diff information: http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/Monticello-MarcusDenker.782.diff http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/Kernel-MarcusDenker.1350.diff http://ss3.gemstone.com/ss/Pharo20/Gofer-Core-MarcusDenker.194.diff

July 10, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] [update 3.0] #30261

by Damien Cassou

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>wrote: > 11138 Implementation of user directories is a mess > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/11138 > yeahhhh. Now, you can ask FileLocator for the desktop, documents, home... directories!! -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill

July 10, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] sunit failures vs errors

by Damien Cassou

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > I use them. I always fix the red tests first because they are mostly > easier to fix and some of them lead to yellow tests I agree with you. I tend to do that as well. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill

July 10, 2013