Hi tim Can you report it precisely because right now it is not actionable. And yes doing something is a challenge. Doing nothing is much more confortable because nothing breaks, and you die relaxed. Stef
On 20 Mar 2019, at 20:17, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
Ironically - one of my Exercism testers hit an issue with extract method about when you typed this... itâs seems there has a difference between âSuggestions | Extract methodâ and âSource Code | Extract methodâ sigh... the former gives a walk back ... and itâs due to a strange misspelled variable âpreviousSelectionHighligthâ not being initialised.
So yeah - this all needs testing and fixing.
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Mar 2019, at 17:16, ducasse <stepharo@netcourrier.com> wrote:
Hi
to relax I was going over RB code because we will start to improve the refactoring. And I started to add tests (yes the dummy little things that everybody can write but that most people prefer to think they do and talk about). And writing such super super stupid tests
testCheckInvalidMethodName "Usually used to validate input."
self deny: (RBCondition checkMethodName: 'fofo fo'). self deny: (RBCondition checkMethodName: '123fofo'). "self deny: (RBCondition checkMethodName: 'foo::')." "self deny: (RBCondition checkMethodName: 'agr:goo:aa').â
checkMethodName: aString "Return whether the argument aName is can represent a selector"
^ aString isString and: [ RBScanner isSelector: aString ]
I found that RBScanner reports that
#foo:: or 'agr:goo:aaâ is a valid selector :(
So if you **really** want to help pharo this is not that difficult.
Now this is a matter of will.
Stef