- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] I am the only one who finds #assert:equals: oppostite to expected?

by Andres Valloud

When the expected answer is not a literal, then the order is not so important. Usually, complex tests have expected answers that are not literals, and you end up with a method along the lines of expectedAnswer := self doItOneWay. actualAnswer := self doItTheOtherWay. self assert: expectedAnswer = actualAnswer or expectedAnswer := self doItOneWay. actualAnswer := self doItTheOtherWay. self assert: actualAnswer = expectedAnswer But, see, in this case the temporary value names remove the confusion, and then the order doesn't matter as much. It seems to me the original issue is that the meaning of a message argument is implicit only in the order because the selector does not distinguish between the two provided arguments. In short, the selector is vague because it does not help disambiguating the meaning just by reading the code aloud. You can change the order if you want, but I suspect there's more to it than that. My 2c of devalued Monopoly money printed on recycled newspaper... :). Andres. On 4/30/11 11:22 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > Thanks everybody, it is nice to see I am not alone.. > Yes, Stef, the API is the same, but the sematics is not. I mean, I > muuuch prefer to change it, but indeed, there will be a change in the > "behavior". What I mean is that all test cases that were using > #assert:equals: in the "correct" way (correct I mean to what SUnit > says), then after will be "incorrect". I don't care. The only problem is > that when they debugger the message will be incorrect. > But it is as always....or improve or be backward compatibility.... > > So... +1 to the change > > Here is the issue tracker: > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=4129 > > if we finally agree, I can submit the fix. > > Cheers > > Mariano > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com > <mailto:damien.cassou@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck > <marianopeck(a)gmail.com <mailto:marianopeck@gmail.com>> wrote: > > testBlah > > | universalAnswer | > > universalAnswer := 30. > > universalAnswer := universalAnswer + 11. > > self assert: universalAnswer equals: 42. > > > > In this case, 42 is the "expected" and "universalAnswer" is the > "actual" > > value. > > I feel weird writing like this: > > > > self assert: 42 equals: universalAnswer. > > I think I'm responsible for this non sense, sorry about that. When I > put the parameters in this order, I thought the result would be > similar to JUnit in which 'expected' is always before 'actual'. > Unfortunately, it looks like I just forgot to read the whole sentence: > 'self assert that something equals 42' reads much better than the > other way around. I don't think too much code depends on this > #assert:equals: method as it has only been introduced recently. > > I vote for changing the order. > > -- > Damien Cassou > http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st > > "Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them > popular by not having them." James Iry > > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

April 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] I am the only one who finds #assert:equals: oppostite to expected?

by Andres Valloud

I use temporary value names such as expectedAnswer and actualValue. Then I feel there's no confusion. On 4/30/11 7:20 , Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > Hi guys. I always code my tests something like this: > > testBlah > | universalAnswer | > universalAnswer := 30. > universalAnswer := universalAnswer + 11. > self assert: universalAnswer equals: 42. > > In this case, 42 is the "expected" and "universalAnswer" is the "actual" > value. > I feel weird writing like this: > > self assert: 42 equals: universalAnswer. > > I don't know why...but I do..the same as when doing should: [] raise: > Error. > In that case you put the "actual" first and the "expected" at the end... > > ok....the "problem" is that assert:equals: is in fact: asserts: > expected equals: actual instead of > asserts: actual equals: expected > > So, with my test I would receive a description in the debugger that says > "'Expected 41 but was 42.'" > which is completely the opposite. Of course, if I write my tests in the > way I don't like, that is: > self assert: 42 equals: universalAnswer. > > then i got the correct message "'Expected 42 but was 41.'" > > I don't pretend pharo change this because I guess it is standard, and > blah blah blah. But senders of #assert:equals: should both, some written > as mine (so the message is incorrect for them) and some correct. > > In addition, I think it is a problem of the selector name. If we could > make it clearer, the won't be necessary to confuse "actual" with > "expected". > > Cheers > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

April 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] I am the only one who finds #assert:equals: oppostite to expected?

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Thanks everybody, it is nice to see I am not alone.. Yes, Stef, the API is the same, but the sematics is not. I mean, I muuuch prefer to change it, but indeed, there will be a change in the "behavior". What I mean is that all test cases that were using #assert:equals: in the "correct" way (correct I mean to what SUnit says), then after will be "incorrect". I don't care. The only problem is that when they debugger the message will be incorrect. But it is as always....or improve or be backward compatibility.... So... +1 to the change Here is the issue tracker: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=4129 if we finally agree, I can submit the fix. Cheers Mariano On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com>wrote: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck > <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > testBlah > > | universalAnswer | > > universalAnswer := 30. > > universalAnswer := universalAnswer + 11. > > self assert: universalAnswer equals: 42. > > > > In this case, 42 is the "expected" and "universalAnswer" is the "actual" > > value. > > I feel weird writing like this: > > > > self assert: 42 equals: universalAnswer. > > I think I'm responsible for this non sense, sorry about that. When I > put the parameters in this order, I thought the result would be > similar to JUnit in which 'expected' is always before 'actual'. > Unfortunately, it looks like I just forgot to read the whole sentence: > 'self assert that something equals 42' reads much better than the > other way around. I don't think too much code depends on this > #assert:equals: method as it has only been introduced recently. > > I vote for changing the order. > > -- > Damien Cassou > http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st > > "Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them > popular by not having them." James Iry > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

April 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] I am the only one who finds #assert:equals: oppostite to expected?

by Damien Cassou

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > testBlah > Â Â Â | universalAnswer | > Â Â Â universalAnswer := 30. > Â Â Â universalAnswer := universalAnswer + 11. > Â Â Â self assert: universalAnswer equals: 42. > > In this case, 42 is the "expected" and "universalAnswer" is the "actual" > value. > I feel weird writing like this: > > Â Â Â self assert: 42 equals: universalAnswer. I think I'm responsible for this non sense, sorry about that. When I put the parameters in this order, I thought the result would be similar to JUnit in which 'expected' is always before 'actual'. Unfortunately, it looks like I just forgot to read the whole sentence: 'self assert that something equals 42' reads much better than the other way around. I don't think too much code depends on this #assert:equals: method as it has only been introduced recently. I vote for changing the order. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry

April 30, 2011

[Pharo-project] System time

by Jimmie Houchin

I am developing a time sensitive application. I poll a server every minute for new data. The data is time sensitive and the sooner I can get the data to the release of the data the better. I have noticed that Pharo's system time drifts away from the OS system time. I would really like the Pharo system time to be the correct time. I have not been able to find where in Pharo I can call to update the System clock to the correct time. Any help greatly appreciated. Jimmie

April 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] I am the only one who finds #assert:equals: oppostite to expected?

by Nicolas Cellier

Mariano, I agree, I have NEVER written self assert: expected = actual description: 'expected should equal this result but is not'. That makes me think of this story: In my company, C++ "experts" decided to nether write bool isActive ... if (isActive) { ... } because they pretend every condition must be a test (== <= etc...) to be sure it's a boolean... So they ended up wrting this kind of stupid thing: if (isActive==true) { ... } But I told them : what if you forget one of the equal signs ? Isn't it worse than above ? A lint rule would be so much better ! They said ah, yes you're right, we now gonna write it: if( true==isActive ) { ... } Sometimes, I see loops written like this while(false==isNotActive) { ... } and scratch my head a few seconds. I think our minds are just different... Nicolas 2011/4/30 Peter Hugosson-Miller <oldmanlink(a)gmail.com>: > It feels backwards to me too, in the same way that "one plus one equals two" > feels more natural than "two equals one plus one". > > -- > Cheers, > Peter. > On 30 apr 2011, at 16:20, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi guys. I always code my tests something like this: > > testBlah > Â Â Â | universalAnswer | > Â Â Â universalAnswer := 30. > Â Â Â universalAnswer := universalAnswer + 11. > Â Â Â self assert: universalAnswer equals: 42. > > In this case, 42 is the "expected" and "universalAnswer" is the "actual" > value. > I feel weird writing like this: > > Â Â Â self assert: 42 equals: universalAnswer. > > I don't know why...but I do..the same as when doing should: []Â raise: > Error. > In that case you put the "actual" first and the "expected" at the end... > > ok....the "problem" is that assert:equals:Â is in fact:Â Â asserts: expected > equals: actualÂ instead of > asserts: actual equals: expected > > So, with my test I would receive a description in the debugger that says > "'Expected 41 but was 42.'" > which is completely the opposite. Of course, if I write my tests in the way > I don't like, that is: > Â self assert: 42 equals: universalAnswer. > > then i got the correct message "'Expected 42 but was 41.'" > > I don't pretend pharo change this because I guess it is standard, and blah > blah blah. But senders of #assert:equals: should both, some written as mine > (so the message is incorrect for them) and some correct. > > In addition, I think it is a problem of the selector name. If we could make > it clearer, the won't be necessary to confuse "actual" with "expected". > > Cheers > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > >

April 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] System time

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

> I am developing a time sensitive application. I poll a server every minute for new data. The data is time sensitive and the sooner I can get the data to the release of the data the better. > > I have noticed that Pharo's system time drifts away from the OS system time. I would really like the Pharo system time to be the correct time. do you have a repeatable scenario? VM Image information. > I have not been able to find where in Pharo I can call to update the System clock to the correct time. you can use OSProcess (only mac and linux) > > Any help greatly appreciated. > > Jimmie >

April 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] I am the only one who finds #assert:equals: oppostite to expected?

by Sean Allen

You are not alone on this. On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck < marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi guys. I always code my tests something like this: > > testBlah > | universalAnswer | > universalAnswer := 30. > universalAnswer := universalAnswer + 11. > self assert: universalAnswer equals: 42. > > In this case, 42 is the "expected" and "universalAnswer" is the "actual" > value. > I feel weird writing like this: > > self assert: 42 equals: universalAnswer. > > I don't know why...but I do..the same as when doing should: [] raise: > Error. > In that case you put the "actual" first and the "expected" at the end... > > ok....the "problem" is that assert:equals: is in fact: asserts: expected > equals: actual instead of > asserts: actual equals: expected > > So, with my test I would receive a description in the debugger that says > "'Expected 41 but was 42.'" > which is completely the opposite. Of course, if I write my tests in the way > I don't like, that is: > self assert: 42 equals: universalAnswer. > > then i got the correct message "'Expected 42 but was 41.'" > > I don't pretend pharo change this because I guess it is standard, and blah > blah blah. But senders of #assert:equals: should both, some written as mine > (so the message is incorrect for them) and some correct. > > In addition, I think it is a problem of the selector name. If we could make > it clearer, the won't be necessary to confuse "actual" with "expected". > > Cheers > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > >

April 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] I am the only one who finds #assert:equals: oppostite to expected?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

mariano since the API is the same I guess that we can change to get the behavior you expect. I'm still convinced that we should develop another testing framework because just to be compatible with SUnit we are bound to never change. At brest I discuss and gave a list of features to niall and I still do not know what happened to them.... Stef > Hi guys. I always code my tests something like this: > > testBlah > | universalAnswer | > universalAnswer := 30. > universalAnswer := universalAnswer + 11. > self assert: universalAnswer equals: 42. > > In this case, 42 is the "expected" and "universalAnswer" is the "actual" value. > I feel weird writing like this: > > self assert: 42 equals: universalAnswer. > > I don't know why...but I do..the same as when doing should: [] raise: Error. > In that case you put the "actual" first and the "expected" at the end... > > ok....the "problem" is that assert:equals: is in fact: asserts: expected equals: actual instead of > asserts: actual equals: expected > > So, with my test I would receive a description in the debugger that says "'Expected 41 but was 42.'" > which is completely the opposite. Of course, if I write my tests in the way I don't like, that is: > self assert: 42 equals: universalAnswer. > > then i got the correct message "'Expected 42 but was 41.'" > > I don't pretend pharo change this because I guess it is standard, and blah blah blah. But senders of #assert:equals: should both, some written as mine (so the message is incorrect for them) and some correct. > > In addition, I think it is a problem of the selector name. If we could make it clearer, the won't be necessary to confuse "actual" with "expected". > > Cheers > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >

April 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] HelpBrowser takes too much time to open

by Alexandre Bergel

> in fact cannot the cache be class side? beucase now each time you do HelpBrowser open, you compute again the cache....but I am not sure if they should change amont different opened browsers Could be. It is important to have a scenario. The problem is getting the pragmas from the whole system. If you put the cache on the class side, then you will indeed need to reset the cache, by registering to the system events. The reset has to be performed at each installation of a new help. This is a bit more work. Shall we do to that direction? I think it makes sense. Alexandre > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > Yes, but this depends what is the expected behavior of the browser. I like the Agile approach that says you're done when all the tests are green :-) > > Alexandre > > > On 30 Apr 2011, at 10:02, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > Yes, but I have no idea. Another thing is that now HelpBrowser should implement something like: > > > > HelpBrowser >> cleanUp > > self resetChache > > > > >> resetCache > > helpTopicCache := nil > > > > So that the class is automatically cleaned in #cleanUpForRelease and friends... right now since Smalltalk cleanUp sends to all classes which understand such method, just implemented that should be enough. > > > > Cheers > > > > Mariano > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > > You're right Mariano. However, I do not know if the help browser gets updated if you have a browser opened and add a new help in the system. In any case, this is a requirement that is not formalized by the unit tests. > > > > I think that ideally, the reset cache should be done when receiving an event of a class creation that is a help. > > > > Alexandre > > > > > > On 30 Apr 2011, at 09:29, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > > > > > Cool! Thanks Alexandre. Now...the problem with the cache is always the same...when to invalidate them. > > > In this case, when do I need to set helpTopicCache to nil. I guess that if you create a help, then it is "automatically" detected when you open the browser. > > > Now, you have to explicitly flush the cache, haven't you? So...is there some documentation of HelpSystem that should be updated to reflect that ? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > > > > MessageTally time: [HelpBrowser open] between 2 seconds in Cog and with a regular VM between 6 and 8.... > > > > is there an easy way to improve it ? > > > > > > > > Alexandre, do you want another place where to put a cache like Metacello's currentVersion? ;) > > > > > > :-) > > > Sure. Easy. > > > > > > SystemHelp>>allSystemHelpPragmas takes time. When you open a browser, the method HelpBrowser>>open is called once and SystemHelp>>allSystemHelpPragmas twice. Easy to suspect that a cache is missing. > > > > > > So, if you define > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > > HelpBrowser>>helpTopic > > > ^ helpTopicCache ifNil: [ helpTopicCache := rootTopic asHelpTopic ] > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > > > > > and adapt HelpBrowser>>refresh you win 50% of execution time. > > > > > > Here is it: > > > > > > > > > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=4126 > > > > > > Before this fix, I have: > > > [HelpBrowser open] timeToRun > > > => 6099 > > > > > > After the fix I have: > > > [HelpBrowser open] timeToRun > > > => 3094 > > > > > > Naturally, tests are kept green. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Alexandre > > > > > > -- > > > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > > > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > > > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mariano > > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > > > -- > > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mariano > > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

April 30, 2011