On 24 October 2013 15:40, Philippe Marschall <philippe.marschall@netcetera.ch> wrote:

On 24.10.13 15:24, Igor Stasenko wrote:

On 24 October 2013 08:17, Philippe Marschall
<philippe.marschall@netcetera.ch
<mailto:philippe.marschall@netcetera.ch>> wrote:

�� On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote:

�� see my long explanation here
�� https://pharo.fogbugz.com/__default.asp?11876#87218

�� <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218>
�� it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such a
�� failing assertion.

�� This isn't moving Pharo foward. This doesn't make the system any
�� more flexible, adaptable, modular or malleable. This doesn't make
�� the system any easier to maintain. This doesn't make the system any
�� smaller, faster, scalable or secure. This doesn't make the system
�� any easier to maintain. This doesn't make life easier for anybody
�� developing Pharo or using Pharo. This doesn't improve Pharo in any way.

�� This only adds code who's sole purpose is to break people's existing
�� code.

�� If you disagree with such a way of writing tests then the right
�� solution IMHO is to write a SLint rule.

Running SLint over tests? I could agree the working code should be
checked for rules.. but tests?

Yes. Test should have the same quality standards as the rest of the code because you'll have to maintain them just the same. Our tests have to be portable like the rest of our code.

Well, if you putting such high quality standards on Seaside, then logically i would expect more understanding from your side that people here also want to have

quality standards for Pharo as well. And this issue with #shouldn't lies exactly in this plane.

Because rephrasing you, running SLint on tests << doesn't make the system any
�� smaller, faster, scalable or secure. This doesn't make the system
�� any easier to maintain.>>

��:)

Cheers
Philippe

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.