2016-10-30 11:41 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>:

Hi,

I actually think there is no disagreement in this discussion :).

I am not sure about that.

��

I see it similarly to how Dale described it, but perhaps I am wrong. It seems to me that:
- Guille and Stef are talking about Core, they refer to the smallest image that can be useful for a developer and that is being built out of the tiny kernel. Indeed, Mocks do not belong there. Specifically, as FileSystem does belong in this image, we should not make FileSystem testing depend�� on Mocks.
- Denis is talking about the typical distribution that we now name the Pharo image. Mocks might actually belong in this one quite nicely.

Denis wants to have a Mock-Framework to be used for SUnit, and if we have Kernel and Kernel-Tests in the bootstrap image, the Mocks-Framework has to be in it too, no ?

��

>From a practical point of view, it is not a good option to add new things for Pharo 6. We have decided that Pharo 6 is closed for new features.

Feature freeze? Really, since when?

��

However, once we have the new process in place for Pharo 7, we can reconsider our options. The new process should precisely make it easier and safer to play with new things for the official distribution that has several convenience libraries inside.

@Guille, Stef: Does this reflect what you think?
@Denis: Is this reasonable for you?

Cheers,
Doru

> On Oct 30, 2016, at 9:33 AM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
>
> Denis
>
> We are working since 4 years now to get
>
>�� �� - have a small kernel + tests
>
>�� �� - be able to load nicely configurations
>
> We should not add something else than Sunit for tests of the small kernels tests.
>
> Now people can use whatever they want to test their system but for the core
>
> we are really picky because loading on single package may add far too many dependencies.
>
> and it means
>
>�� �� - more time to load
>
>�� �� - more time to debug
>
>�� �� - more time to just understand what did not work during the bootstrap.
>
> So our goal is to shrink the minimal core and not to extend it. So we will add mock by hand if we need them.
>
> I agree with Guillermo. Far too much pain.
>
> Stef
>
> Le 28/10/16 �� 18:51, Denis Kudriashov a ��crit :
>> We always said that smalltalk is the best for TDD.
>> But we not have mocks by default in Pharo while mocks is fundamental part of TDD.
>> So no kernel tests could benefit from them.
>> And more important TDD is design process and without mocks we can't apply it to kernel with full power.
>> What you think to integrate Mocketry in Pharo 6?
>> It has comments and documentation (PharoInProgress, Help), advanced features and it is very competitive to any modern mock libraries.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Denis
>
>

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Value is always contextual."