- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[update 3.0] #30261

by Marcus Denker

30261 ----- 11138 Implementation of user directories is a mess https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/11138 11152 Monticello not creating proper changes when moving trait methods to/from class https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/11152 Diff information: http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/Pharo30/main/Traits-MarcusDenker.542.diff http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/Pharo/Pharo30/main/FileSystem-Core-MarcusDenker.…

July 10, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] sunit failures vs errors

by Camillo Bruni

On 2013-07-10, at 09:08, Stefan Marr <smalltalk(a)stefan-marr.de> wrote: > Hi Camillo: > > On 10 Jul 2013, at 02:46, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Does anybody here distinguish failures and errors for real when doing TDD? > > To make your live a little more difficult, I actually introduced an additional type of failure on top of that: blue for still to be implemented. that on the other hand I like :) because a different action is needed. Which exactly is not the case when it is red vs yellow. I have to debug in either case... > I liked that a lot for prototyping to see all my todos in the test runner in a different pane, and to be able to distinguish between unimplemented stuff, and stuff I just broke again. > > However, to your actual question, I have not noticed that difference in JUnit, so, I guess, I don't really care for the destination between errors and failures.

July 10, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Some Spec questions

by Andrei Vasile Chis

> > 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

More manpower needed for reviewing fixes...

by Marcus Denker

Hi, We mananged to nearly review (and often integrate) almost all pending fixes and enhancements. There are 4 issues left: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/filters/36/Review It would be nice if more people would be involved. If *you* don't comment, it might be we will do the wrong thing? Marcus

July 10, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] sunit failures vs errors

by Stefan Marr

Hi Camillo: On 10 Jul 2013, at 02:46, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Does anybody here distinguish failures and errors for real when doing TDD? To make your live a little more difficult, I actually introduced an additional type of failure on top of that: blue for still to be implemented. I liked that a lot for prototyping to see all my todos in the test runner in a different pane, and to be able to distinguish between unimplemented stuff, and stuff I just broke again. However, to your actual question, I have not noticed that difference in JUnit, so, I guess, I don't really care for the destination between errors and failures. Best regards Stefan -- Stefan Marr Software Languages Lab Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr Phone: +32 2 629 2974 Fax: +32 2 629 3525

July 10, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] sunit failures vs errors

by Norbert Hartl

Am 10.07.2013 um 08:15 schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares(a)gmx.de>: > Camillo wrote: >> Does anybody here distinguish failures and errors for real when doing TDD? > > Yes, it has a special meaning AND is very helpfull - ESPECIALLY when you start with tests first (XPStyle): > Usually one writes the tests and then you try to get them from red over yellow to > green: > > red: there is a real error, for instance a message is not yet implemented (maybe only the test was written > and one uses the debugger and the "Create" functionality to create the calls) > > yellow: the basic calls are there/messages implemented and working (no DNU) but an expectation is not yet > met since an assertion fails > > green: everything is OK > > > Or to quote Kent Beck: http://www.xprogramming.com/testfram.htm > > <quote> > "Failures and Errors > > The framework distinguishes between failures and errors. A failure is an anticipated problem. When you write tests, you check for expected results. If you get a different answer, that is a failure. An error is more catastrophic, a error condition you didn't check for." > </quote> > That is funny. I was thinking the same when replying to Cami. I wanted to write something like an error being more catastrophic... but then I was thinking about it and I'm not sure anymore. Sure they are different...wait...are they? The longer I think about it the lesser I'm convinced that it needs to stay like it is. Especially in the case of should:raise: where a piece of broken code triggers only a failure. Just to be correct...No Cami...that doesn't mean it needs to be changed either :) Norbert > Please keep it separated, it is very usefull. > >> Besides the complexity added to the testing framework it is a burden for newcomers. > > Learning about Pragmas, Methods, Classes, Debugger, marking expected failures, ... is also a burden for newcomers. > Will we throw them out? No! > > SUnit is still really simple and a pleasure to work with! > > Thx > Torsten > > >

July 10, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] sunit failures vs errors

by Norbert Hartl

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. Maybe not that convincing but I feel the distinction between fail and error is good. Will think about it more. Am 10.07.2013 um 02:46 schrieb Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com>: > Does anybody here distinguish failures and errors for real when doing TDD? > > I do not really see the point of separating them. > Besides the complexity added to the testing framework it is a burden for newcomers. > > I personally just see: > 1) test passes => green, ok > 2) test doesn't pass => red, not ok > > Apparently that has been done in JUnit4 http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/31983/0/page/2

July 10, 2013

sunit failures vs errors

by Torsten Bergmann

Camillo wrote: >Does anybody here distinguish failures and errors for real when doing TDD? Yes, it has a special meaning AND is very helpfull - ESPECIALLY when you start with tests first (XPStyle): Usually one writes the tests and then you try to get them from red over yellow to green: red: there is a real error, for instance a message is not yet implemented (maybe only the test was written and one uses the debugger and the "Create" functionality to create the calls) yellow: the basic calls are there/messages implemented and working (no DNU) but an expectation is not yet met since an assertion fails green: everything is OK Or to quote Kent Beck: http://www.xprogramming.com/testfram.htm <quote> "Failures and Errors The framework distinguishes between failures and errors. A failure is an anticipated problem. When you write tests, you check for expected results. If you get a different answer, that is a failure. An error is more catastrophic, a error condition you didn't check for." </quote> Please keep it separated, it is very usefull. >Besides the complexity added to the testing framework it is a burden for newcomers. Learning about Pragmas, Methods, Classes, Debugger, marking expected failures, ... is also a burden for newcomers. Will we throw them out? No! SUnit is still really simple and a pleasure to work with! Thx Torsten

July 10, 2013

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

by Max Leske

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'll check my magic box..

July 10, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] sunit failures vs errors

by Camillo Bruni

On 2013-07-10, at 06:35, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> Does anybody here distinguish failures and errors for real when doing TDD? > > > I don't and I would like to see if both can be merged. 2 pomodoros for a prototype 1 day for a clean implementation ;)

July 10, 2013