[Pharo-project] Suggestion about Phexample and StateSpecs(Mocketry) integration
Hello I think you read about Mocketry and know that It provides same "should syntax" DSL like project Phexample. There is problem between two projects. We both implement #should message in Object class. So when somebody want Phexample Mocketry become broken and vice versa. In the past I actually only read about Phexample tests reusage idea with #given message. And I didn't know that It provides "should syntax" too. Now I read about it and look at code (thank's Yuriy Tymchuk) and I have some suggestions about it. First few words about state of Mocketry project. Mocketry is not based on SSpec (I was google such wrong opinion). It is just implement SSpec idea about executable specifications and "should syntax". And specifications part with DSL was extracted from Mocketry to StateSpecs project. So Mocketry is only about mocks and behaviour specs. Idea of executable specifications is not about replacement "assert syntax" with "should syntax". It is about building reusable first class objects which can validate domain objects. For example there are EqualitySpec, ElementsCountSpec, ClassSpec. All this specs present "valid state" of objects. They know how to validate objects. State specs can be used in tests, UI and any other domain where you want put descriptions about what it mean "valid object". I start use StateSpecs in Presenty to build object editor. With specs I put requirements on model aspects. I am sure Magritte provides something similar in description objects. So StateSpecs solve very general problem: how to describe validation rules for objects and how to make such descriptions reusable. To make it convenient and readable StateSpecs provides two kind of DSL: - should syntax to immediately check object state - first class words to create spec instances with more readable way: Instance of: SomeClass, Equal to: #some, Containing item: arrayItem and others First option can be used in tests instead #assert: expressions. Last can be used in mock message arguments. StateSpecs provide very simple way to extend it DSL based on pragmas: Instance of: aClass <syntax: #(be an instance of:)> ^ClassSpec for: aClass Equal to: anObject <syntax: #(equal:)> <syntax: #(be equal:)> ^self return: (EqualitySpec pattern: anObject) Containing item: anObject <syntax: #(include:)> ^ElementContainmentSpec requiredElement: anObject And with this you can write: object should be an instance of: SomeClass object should equal: #some object should be equal: #some array should include: item. So with such approach both kind of DSL extended at one place. Ok. Now my main suggestion. Let's Phexample use StateSpecs for "should syntax". I can provide all "should protocol" of Phexample in StateSpecs. So it will be transparent for current users. It just few extra pragmas and classes in StateSpecs-DSL package. Maybe it is already done by Yuriy Tymchuk. With such integration both projects will just improved. What do you think? Best regards, Denis
On 2013-03-25, at 21:24, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello
I think you read about Mocketry and know that It provides same "should syntax" DSL like project Phexample.
There is problem between two projects. We both implement #should message in Object class. So when somebody want Phexample Mocketry become broken and vice versa.
In the past I actually only read about Phexample tests reusage idea with #given message. And I didn't know that It provides "should syntax" too. Now I read about it and look at code (thank's Yuriy Tymchuk) and I have some suggestions about it.
First few words about state of Mocketry project.
Mocketry is not based on SSpec (I was google such wrong opinion). It is just implement SSpec idea about executable specifications and "should syntax". And specifications part with DSL was extracted from Mocketry to StateSpecs project. So Mocketry is only about mocks and behaviour specs.
Idea of executable specifications is not about replacement "assert syntax" with "should syntax". It is about building reusable first class objects which can validate domain objects. For example there are EqualitySpec, ElementsCountSpec, ClassSpec. All this specs present "valid state" of objects. They know how to validate objects. State specs can be used in tests, UI and any other domain where you want put descriptions about what it mean "valid object". I start use StateSpecs in Presenty to build object editor. With specs I put requirements on model aspects. I am sure Magritte provides something similar in description objects.
So StateSpecs solve very general problem: how to describe validation rules for objects and how to make such descriptions reusable. To make it convenient and readable StateSpecs provides two kind of DSL:
- should syntax to immediately check object state - first class words to create spec instances with more readable way: Instance of: SomeClass, Equal to: #some, Containing item: arrayItem and others
First option can be used in tests instead #assert: expressions. Last can be used in mock message arguments.
StateSpecs provide very simple way to extend it DSL based on pragmas:
Instance of: aClass <syntax: #(be an instance of:)> ^ClassSpec for: aClass
Equal to: anObject <syntax: #(equal:)> <syntax: #(be equal:)> ^self return: (EqualitySpec pattern: anObject)
Containing item: anObject <syntax: #(include:)> ^ElementContainmentSpec requiredElement: anObject
And with this you can write:
object should be an instance of: SomeClass object should equal: #some object should be equal: #some array should include: item.
So with such approach both kind of DSL extended at one place.
Ok. Now my main suggestion. Let's Phexample use StateSpecs for "should syntax". I can provide all "should protocol" of Phexample in StateSpecs. So it will be transparent for current users. It just few extra pragmas and classes in StateSpecs-DSL package. Maybe it is already done by Yuriy Tymchuk. With such integration both projects will just improved.
What do you think?
humm I have ambigous feelings about that. Definitely StateSpec looks more mature and can be used in a more flexible way. But I am not a big fan of the pragma magic. Why? It breaks all tools for me :/. If I see a message send I want to be able to: - browse it, so I can see who implements it? - debug it directly to get to the real method. SateSpec does indeed help writing readable code by allowing almost grammatically correct sentences. However I don't think this is the way to program. I am a big fan of stupid english: `foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar` If I want to figure out how the first one works, I can simply browse the implementors of #should and/or #isKindOf: where is the StateSpec version I am lost. I have to rely on "contains string literal" to get the sources, for me that is very strange. So personally I would go for the simple solution that doesn't introduce yet another indirection meta-level using the pragmas. For me, complex DSLs only work if you write the proper debugging tools for it. Sorry for so much negative energy :) but you can try to convince me otherwise :)
I think that we can implement all basic messages like isTrue, isKindOf: , so you'll be able to write it and browse it. Also people will be able to decide in what form they want to write tests. I think that it's nice to have such flexible tool as StateSpec ÐадÑÑлано з iPhone 25 беÑ. 2013 о 22:28 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> напиÑав(ла):
On 2013-03-25, at 21:24, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello
I think you read about Mocketry and know that It provides same "should syntax" DSL like project Phexample.
There is problem between two projects. We both implement #should message in Object class. So when somebody want Phexample Mocketry become broken and vice versa.
In the past I actually only read about Phexample tests reusage idea with #given message. And I didn't know that It provides "should syntax" too. Now I read about it and look at code (thank's Yuriy Tymchuk) and I have some suggestions about it.
First few words about state of Mocketry project.
Mocketry is not based on SSpec (I was google such wrong opinion). It is just implement SSpec idea about executable specifications and "should syntax". And specifications part with DSL was extracted from Mocketry to StateSpecs project. So Mocketry is only about mocks and behaviour specs.
Idea of executable specifications is not about replacement "assert syntax" with "should syntax". It is about building reusable first class objects which can validate domain objects. For example there are EqualitySpec, ElementsCountSpec, ClassSpec. All this specs present "valid state" of objects. They know how to validate objects. State specs can be used in tests, UI and any other domain where you want put descriptions about what it mean "valid object". I start use StateSpecs in Presenty to build object editor. With specs I put requirements on model aspects. I am sure Magritte provides something similar in description objects.
So StateSpecs solve very general problem: how to describe validation rules for objects and how to make such descriptions reusable. To make it convenient and readable StateSpecs provides two kind of DSL:
- should syntax to immediately check object state - first class words to create spec instances with more readable way: Instance of: SomeClass, Equal to: #some, Containing item: arrayItem and others
First option can be used in tests instead #assert: expressions. Last can be used in mock message arguments.
StateSpecs provide very simple way to extend it DSL based on pragmas:
Instance of: aClass <syntax: #(be an instance of:)> ^ClassSpec for: aClass
Equal to: anObject <syntax: #(equal:)> <syntax: #(be equal:)> ^self return: (EqualitySpec pattern: anObject)
Containing item: anObject <syntax: #(include:)> ^ElementContainmentSpec requiredElement: anObject
And with this you can write:
object should be an instance of: SomeClass object should equal: #some object should be equal: #some array should include: item.
So with such approach both kind of DSL extended at one place.
Ok. Now my main suggestion. Let's Phexample use StateSpecs for "should syntax". I can provide all "should protocol" of Phexample in StateSpecs. So it will be transparent for current users. It just few extra pragmas and classes in StateSpecs-DSL package. Maybe it is already done by Yuriy Tymchuk. With such integration both projects will just improved.
What do you think?
humm I have ambigous feelings about that. Definitely StateSpec looks more mature and can be used in a more flexible way. But I am not a big fan of the pragma magic. Why? It breaks all tools for me :/. If I see a message send I want to be able to: - browse it, so I can see who implements it? - debug it directly to get to the real method.
SateSpec does indeed help writing readable code by allowing almost grammatically correct sentences. However I don't think this is the way to program. I am a big fan of stupid english:
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
If I want to figure out how the first one works, I can simply browse the implementors of #should and/or #isKindOf: where is the StateSpec version I am lost. I have to rely on "contains string literal" to get the sources, for me that is very strange.
So personally I would go for the simple solution that doesn't introduce yet another indirection meta-level using the pragmas.
For me, complex DSLs only work if you write the proper debugging tools for it.
Sorry for so much negative energy :) but you can try to convince me otherwise :)
Hello 2013/3/26 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com>
Definitely StateSpec looks more mature and can be used in a more flexible way. But I am not a big fan of the pragma magic. Why? It breaks all tools for me :/. If I see a message send I want to be able to: - browse it, so I can see who implements it? - debug it directly to get to the real method.
SateSpec does indeed help writing readable code by allowing almost grammatically correct sentences. However I don't think this is the way to program. I am a big fan of stupid english:
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
If I want to figure out how the first one works, I can simply browse the implementors of #should and/or #isKindOf: where is the StateSpec version I am lost. I have to rely on "contains string literal" to get the sources, for me that is very strange.
I think main thing you want is easilly explore all available should syntax. And StateSpecs can be easilly adopted for such task. We can just move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class. So you can open this class and see what available. To get implementors of some "should expression" you should use senders search of syntax words instead of implementors. Syntax words in StateSpecs is just method literals ( <syntax: #(be an instance of:)>, #() is just array of symbols). Interesting that StateSpecs has more explicit syntax system. How you can explore in Phexample expression: object should be true ? You have separate PheMatcher>>be and PheMatcher>>true methods and there is no places in code where you can see that this messages can and should be used together. But with StateSpecs you should put pragma with explicit expression like: Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true) So with StateSpecs you have full syntax expression at one place which can be easy explored. And for example to support Phexample mesage #beTrue you should just add another pragma: Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> <syntax: #(beTrue)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true) So with Phexample you can browse implementors of "single word should expressions". But with Phexample if you browse implementors of #be like messages you have no idea how it can be used. In StateSpecs you should use senders. And with StateSpecs if you browse "any syntax word implementors" by senders seach you will see all possible usage cases. And if I move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class you can easilly see all possible expressions in one place. `foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
With StateSpecs it should be foo should be a kind of: Bar And as I said before It is simple task to support all Phexample expressions by StateSpecs pragmas Best regards, Denis
On Mar 26, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
If I want to figure out how the first one works, I can simply browse the implementors of #should and/or #isKindOf: where is the StateSpec version I am lost. I have to rely on "contains string literal" to get the sources, for me that is very strange.
+1
Ok, and what if we will change behavior a bit so if no definitions were found it will send the incoming message to enclosed object? This way it will work like phexample but will also allow to define some fancy DSL. On 26 беÑ. 2013, at 07:46, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello 2013/3/26 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> Definitely StateSpec looks more mature and can be used in a more flexible way. But I am not a big fan of the pragma magic. Why? It breaks all tools for me :/. If I see a message send I want to be able to: - browse it, so I can see who implements it? - debug it directly to get to the real method.
SateSpec does indeed help writing readable code by allowing almost grammatically correct sentences. However I don't think this is the way to program. I am a big fan of stupid english:
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
If I want to figure out how the first one works, I can simply browse the implementors of #should and/or #isKindOf: where is the StateSpec version I am lost. I have to rely on "contains string literal" to get the sources, for me that is very strange.
I think main thing you want is easilly explore all available should syntax. And StateSpecs can be easilly adopted for such task. We can just move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class. So you can open this class and see what available.
To get implementors of some "should expression" you should use senders search of syntax words instead of implementors. Syntax words in StateSpecs is just method literals ( <syntax: #(be an instance of:)>, #() is just array of symbols).
Interesting that StateSpecs has more explicit syntax system. How you can explore in Phexample expression:
object should be true ?
You have separate PheMatcher>>be and PheMatcher>>true methods and there is no places in code where you can see that this messages can and should be used together. But with StateSpecs you should put pragma with explicit expression like:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with StateSpecs you have full syntax expression at one place which can be easy explored. And for example to support Phexample mesage #beTrue you should just add another pragma:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> <syntax: #(beTrue)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with Phexample you can browse implementors of "single word should expressions". But with Phexample if you browse implementors of #be like messages you have no idea how it can be used. In StateSpecs you should use senders. And with StateSpecs if you browse "any syntax word implementors" by senders seach you will see all possible usage cases. And if I move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class you can easilly see all possible expressions in one place.
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
With StateSpecs it should be
foo should be a kind of: Bar
And as I said before It is simple task to support all Phexample expressions by StateSpecs pragmas
Best regards, Denis
2013/3/26 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>
Ok, and what if we will change behavior a bit so if no definitions were found it will send the incoming message to enclosed object? This way it will work like phexample but will also allow to define some fancy DSL.
We can copy all phexample syntax methods into single class inside StateSpecs package but replace implementation with pragmas approach. So anybody can browse implementors like usual and it will not required any special cases. How I can influence your interest, guys? I can provide cleaning, comments, improvements to StateSpecs. I opened for your requirements. Phexample become quite popular and can be part of Pharo sometimes. Mocketry/StateSpecs used by people too. It would be bad if this packages can't be used together.
On 26 беÑ. 2013, at 07:46, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello 2013/3/26 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com>
Definitely StateSpec looks more mature and can be used in a more flexible way. But I am not a big fan of the pragma magic. Why? It breaks all tools for me :/. If I see a message send I want to be able to: - browse it, so I can see who implements it? - debug it directly to get to the real method.
SateSpec does indeed help writing readable code by allowing almost grammatically correct sentences. However I don't think this is the way to program. I am a big fan of stupid english:
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
If I want to figure out how the first one works, I can simply browse the implementors of #should and/or #isKindOf: where is the StateSpec version I am lost. I have to rely on "contains string literal" to get the sources, for me that is very strange.
I think main thing you want is easilly explore all available should syntax. And StateSpecs can be easilly adopted for such task. We can just move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class. So you can open this class and see what available.
To get implementors of some "should expression" you should use senders search of syntax words instead of implementors. Syntax words in StateSpecs is just method literals ( <syntax: #(be an instance of:)>, #() is just array of symbols).
Interesting that StateSpecs has more explicit syntax system. How you can explore in Phexample expression:
object should be true ?
You have separate PheMatcher>>be and PheMatcher>>true methods and there is no places in code where you can see that this messages can and should be used together. But with StateSpecs you should put pragma with explicit expression like:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with StateSpecs you have full syntax expression at one place which can be easy explored. And for example to support Phexample mesage #beTrue you should just add another pragma:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> <syntax: #(beTrue)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with Phexample you can browse implementors of "single word should expressions". But with Phexample if you browse implementors of #be like messages you have no idea how it can be used. In StateSpecs you should use senders. And with StateSpecs if you browse "any syntax word implementors" by senders seach you will see all possible usage cases. And if I move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class you can easilly see all possible expressions in one place.
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
With StateSpecs it should be
foo should be a kind of: Bar
And as I said before It is simple task to support all Phexample expressions by StateSpecs pragmas
Best regards, Denis
On 2013-03-26, at 19:45, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/3/26 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>
Ok, and what if we will change behavior a bit so if no definitions were found it will send the incoming message to enclosed object? This way it will work like phexample but will also allow to define some fancy DSL.
We can copy all phexample syntax methods into single class inside StateSpecs package but replace implementation with pragmas approach. So anybody can browse implementors like usual and it will not required any special cases.
How I can influence your interest, guys? I can provide cleaning, comments, improvements to StateSpecs. I opened for your requirements. Phexample become quite popular and can be part of Pharo sometimes. Mocketry/StateSpecs used by people too. It would be bad if this packages can't be used together.
sorry for starting the whole rant :) I am veery busy at least until tomorrow Yuriy we can discuss that after tomorrow? I would as well appreciate some common solution to avoid the selector clash.
On 26 беÑ. 2013, at 07:46, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello 2013/3/26 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com>
Definitely StateSpec looks more mature and can be used in a more flexible way. But I am not a big fan of the pragma magic. Why? It breaks all tools for me :/. If I see a message send I want to be able to: - browse it, so I can see who implements it? - debug it directly to get to the real method.
SateSpec does indeed help writing readable code by allowing almost grammatically correct sentences. However I don't think this is the way to program. I am a big fan of stupid english:
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
If I want to figure out how the first one works, I can simply browse the implementors of #should and/or #isKindOf: where is the StateSpec version I am lost. I have to rely on "contains string literal" to get the sources, for me that is very strange.
I think main thing you want is easilly explore all available should syntax. And StateSpecs can be easilly adopted for such task. We can just move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class. So you can open this class and see what available.
To get implementors of some "should expression" you should use senders search of syntax words instead of implementors. Syntax words in StateSpecs is just method literals ( <syntax: #(be an instance of:)>, #() is just array of symbols).
Interesting that StateSpecs has more explicit syntax system. How you can explore in Phexample expression:
object should be true ?
You have separate PheMatcher>>be and PheMatcher>>true methods and there is no places in code where you can see that this messages can and should be used together. But with StateSpecs you should put pragma with explicit expression like:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with StateSpecs you have full syntax expression at one place which can be easy explored. And for example to support Phexample mesage #beTrue you should just add another pragma:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> <syntax: #(beTrue)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with Phexample you can browse implementors of "single word should expressions". But with Phexample if you browse implementors of #be like messages you have no idea how it can be used. In StateSpecs you should use senders. And with StateSpecs if you browse "any syntax word implementors" by senders seach you will see all possible usage cases. And if I move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class you can easilly see all possible expressions in one place.
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
With StateSpecs it should be
foo should be a kind of: Bar
And as I said before It is simple task to support all Phexample expressions by StateSpecs pragmas
Best regards, Denis
Sounds good to me. On 26 беÑ. 2013, at 23:00, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2013-03-26, at 19:45, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/3/26 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>
Ok, and what if we will change behavior a bit so if no definitions were found it will send the incoming message to enclosed object? This way it will work like phexample but will also allow to define some fancy DSL.
We can copy all phexample syntax methods into single class inside StateSpecs package but replace implementation with pragmas approach. So anybody can browse implementors like usual and it will not required any special cases.
How I can influence your interest, guys? I can provide cleaning, comments, improvements to StateSpecs. I opened for your requirements. Phexample become quite popular and can be part of Pharo sometimes. Mocketry/StateSpecs used by people too. It would be bad if this packages can't be used together.
sorry for starting the whole rant :) I am veery busy at least until tomorrow
Yuriy we can discuss that after tomorrow? I would as well appreciate some common solution to avoid the selector clash.
On 26 беÑ. 2013, at 07:46, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello 2013/3/26 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com>
Definitely StateSpec looks more mature and can be used in a more flexible way. But I am not a big fan of the pragma magic. Why? It breaks all tools for me :/. If I see a message send I want to be able to: - browse it, so I can see who implements it? - debug it directly to get to the real method.
SateSpec does indeed help writing readable code by allowing almost grammatically correct sentences. However I don't think this is the way to program. I am a big fan of stupid english:
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
If I want to figure out how the first one works, I can simply browse the implementors of #should and/or #isKindOf: where is the StateSpec version I am lost. I have to rely on "contains string literal" to get the sources, for me that is very strange.
I think main thing you want is easilly explore all available should syntax. And StateSpecs can be easilly adopted for such task. We can just move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class. So you can open this class and see what available.
To get implementors of some "should expression" you should use senders search of syntax words instead of implementors. Syntax words in StateSpecs is just method literals ( <syntax: #(be an instance of:)>, #() is just array of symbols).
Interesting that StateSpecs has more explicit syntax system. How you can explore in Phexample expression:
object should be true ?
You have separate PheMatcher>>be and PheMatcher>>true methods and there is no places in code where you can see that this messages can and should be used together. But with StateSpecs you should put pragma with explicit expression like:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with StateSpecs you have full syntax expression at one place which can be easy explored. And for example to support Phexample mesage #beTrue you should just add another pragma:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> <syntax: #(beTrue)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with Phexample you can browse implementors of "single word should expressions". But with Phexample if you browse implementors of #be like messages you have no idea how it can be used. In StateSpecs you should use senders. And with StateSpecs if you browse "any syntax word implementors" by senders seach you will see all possible usage cases. And if I move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class you can easilly see all possible expressions in one place.
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
With StateSpecs it should be
foo should be a kind of: Bar
And as I said before It is simple task to support all Phexample expressions by StateSpecs pragmas
Best regards, Denis
Perhaps Mocketry would be a good topic for a "Show us your projects" session. Then we can try to go into a couple of more details. Cheers, Doru On Mar 27, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
Sounds good to me.
On 26 беÑ. 2013, at 23:00, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2013-03-26, at 19:45, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/3/26 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>
Ok, and what if we will change behavior a bit so if no definitions were found it will send the incoming message to enclosed object? This way it will work like phexample but will also allow to define some fancy DSL.
We can copy all phexample syntax methods into single class inside StateSpecs package but replace implementation with pragmas approach. So anybody can browse implementors like usual and it will not required any special cases.
How I can influence your interest, guys? I can provide cleaning, comments, improvements to StateSpecs. I opened for your requirements. Phexample become quite popular and can be part of Pharo sometimes. Mocketry/StateSpecs used by people too. It would be bad if this packages can't be used together.
sorry for starting the whole rant :) I am veery busy at least until tomorrow
Yuriy we can discuss that after tomorrow? I would as well appreciate some common solution to avoid the selector clash.
On 26 беÑ. 2013, at 07:46, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello 2013/3/26 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com>
Definitely StateSpec looks more mature and can be used in a more flexible way. But I am not a big fan of the pragma magic. Why? It breaks all tools for me :/. If I see a message send I want to be able to: - browse it, so I can see who implements it? - debug it directly to get to the real method.
SateSpec does indeed help writing readable code by allowing almost grammatically correct sentences. However I don't think this is the way to program. I am a big fan of stupid english:
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
If I want to figure out how the first one works, I can simply browse the implementors of #should and/or #isKindOf: where is the StateSpec version I am lost. I have to rely on "contains string literal" to get the sources, for me that is very strange.
I think main thing you want is easilly explore all available should syntax. And StateSpecs can be easilly adopted for such task. We can just move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class. So you can open this class and see what available.
To get implementors of some "should expression" you should use senders search of syntax words instead of implementors. Syntax words in StateSpecs is just method literals ( <syntax: #(be an instance of:)>, #() is just array of symbols).
Interesting that StateSpecs has more explicit syntax system. How you can explore in Phexample expression:
object should be true ?
You have separate PheMatcher>>be and PheMatcher>>true methods and there is no places in code where you can see that this messages can and should be used together. But with StateSpecs you should put pragma with explicit expression like:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with StateSpecs you have full syntax expression at one place which can be easy explored. And for example to support Phexample mesage #beTrue you should just add another pragma:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> <syntax: #(beTrue)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with Phexample you can browse implementors of "single word should expressions". But with Phexample if you browse implementors of #be like messages you have no idea how it can be used. In StateSpecs you should use senders. And with StateSpecs if you browse "any syntax word implementors" by senders seach you will see all possible usage cases. And if I move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class you can easilly see all possible expressions in one place.
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
With StateSpecs it should be
foo should be a kind of: Bar
And as I said before It is simple task to support all Phexample expressions by StateSpecs pragmas
Best regards, Denis
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Sometimes the best solution is not the best solution."
2013/3/27 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>
Perhaps Mocketry would be a good topic for a "Show us your projects" session. Then we can try to go into a couple of more details.
Unfortunately I can't participate conference this year
Cheers, Doru
On Mar 27, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
Sounds good to me.
On 26 беÑ. 2013, at 23:00, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2013-03-26, at 19:45, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/3/26 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>
Ok, and what if we will change behavior a bit so if no definitions
were
found it will send the incoming message to enclosed object? This way it will work like phexample but will also allow to define some fancy DSL.
We can copy all phexample syntax methods into single class inside StateSpecs package but replace implementation with pragmas approach. So anybody can browse implementors like usual and it will not required any special cases.
How I can influence your interest, guys? I can provide cleaning, comments, improvements to StateSpecs. I opened for your requirements. Phexample become quite popular and can be part of Pharo sometimes. Mocketry/StateSpecs used by people too. It would be bad if this packages can't be used together.
sorry for starting the whole rant :) I am veery busy at least until tomorrow
Yuriy we can discuss that after tomorrow? I would as well appreciate some common solution to avoid the selector clash.
On 26 беÑ. 2013, at 07:46, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello 2013/3/26 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com>
Definitely StateSpec looks more mature and can be used in a more flexible way. But I am not a big fan of the pragma magic. Why? It breaks all tools for me :/. If I see a message send I want to be able to: - browse it, so I can see who implements it? - debug it directly to get to the real method.
SateSpec does indeed help writing readable code by allowing almost grammatically correct sentences. However I don't think this is the way to program. I am a big fan of stupid english:
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
If I want to figure out how the first one works, I can simply browse the implementors of #should and/or #isKindOf: where is the StateSpec version I am lost. I have to rely on "contains string literal" to get the sources, for me that is very strange.
I think main thing you want is easilly explore all available should syntax. And StateSpecs can be easilly adopted for such task. We can just move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class. So you can open this class and see what available.
To get implementors of some "should expression" you should use senders search of syntax words instead of implementors. Syntax words in StateSpecs is just method literals ( <syntax: #(be an instance of:)>, #() is just array of symbols).
Interesting that StateSpecs has more explicit syntax system. How you can explore in Phexample expression:
object should be true ?
You have separate PheMatcher>>be and PheMatcher>>true methods and there is no places in code where you can see that this messages can and should be used together. But with StateSpecs you should put pragma with explicit expression like:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with StateSpecs you have full syntax expression at one place which can be easy explored. And for example to support Phexample mesage #beTrue you should just add another pragma:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> <syntax: #(beTrue)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with Phexample you can browse implementors of "single word should expressions". But with Phexample if you browse implementors of #be like messages you have no idea how it can be used. In StateSpecs you should use senders. And with StateSpecs if you browse "any syntax word implementors" by senders seach you will see all possible usage cases. And if I move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class you can easilly see all possible expressions in one place.
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
With StateSpecs it should be
foo should be a kind of: Bar
And as I said before It is simple task to support all Phexample expressions by StateSpecs pragmas
Best regards, Denis
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Sometimes the best solution is not the best solution."
If you can write step by step instruction what to show, I can do it. Right now all my time is used to prepare my own presentation, so I can't do it myself. uko On 27 беÑ. 2013, at 18:41, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/3/27 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> Perhaps Mocketry would be a good topic for a "Show us your projects" session. Then we can try to go into a couple of more details.
Unfortunately I can't participate conference this year
Cheers, Doru
On Mar 27, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
Sounds good to me.
On 26 беÑ. 2013, at 23:00, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2013-03-26, at 19:45, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/3/26 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>
Ok, and what if we will change behavior a bit so if no definitions were found it will send the incoming message to enclosed object? This way it will work like phexample but will also allow to define some fancy DSL.
We can copy all phexample syntax methods into single class inside StateSpecs package but replace implementation with pragmas approach. So anybody can browse implementors like usual and it will not required any special cases.
How I can influence your interest, guys? I can provide cleaning, comments, improvements to StateSpecs. I opened for your requirements. Phexample become quite popular and can be part of Pharo sometimes. Mocketry/StateSpecs used by people too. It would be bad if this packages can't be used together.
sorry for starting the whole rant :) I am veery busy at least until tomorrow
Yuriy we can discuss that after tomorrow? I would as well appreciate some common solution to avoid the selector clash.
On 26 беÑ. 2013, at 07:46, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello 2013/3/26 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com>
Definitely StateSpec looks more mature and can be used in a more flexible way. But I am not a big fan of the pragma magic. Why? It breaks all tools for me :/. If I see a message send I want to be able to: - browse it, so I can see who implements it? - debug it directly to get to the real method.
SateSpec does indeed help writing readable code by allowing almost grammatically correct sentences. However I don't think this is the way to program. I am a big fan of stupid english:
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
If I want to figure out how the first one works, I can simply browse the implementors of #should and/or #isKindOf: where is the StateSpec version I am lost. I have to rely on "contains string literal" to get the sources, for me that is very strange.
I think main thing you want is easilly explore all available should syntax. And StateSpecs can be easilly adopted for such task. We can just move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class. So you can open this class and see what available.
To get implementors of some "should expression" you should use senders search of syntax words instead of implementors. Syntax words in StateSpecs is just method literals ( <syntax: #(be an instance of:)>, #() is just array of symbols).
Interesting that StateSpecs has more explicit syntax system. How you can explore in Phexample expression:
object should be true ?
You have separate PheMatcher>>be and PheMatcher>>true methods and there is no places in code where you can see that this messages can and should be used together. But with StateSpecs you should put pragma with explicit expression like:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with StateSpecs you have full syntax expression at one place which can be easy explored. And for example to support Phexample mesage #beTrue you should just add another pragma:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> <syntax: #(beTrue)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with Phexample you can browse implementors of "single word should expressions". But with Phexample if you browse implementors of #be like messages you have no idea how it can be used. In StateSpecs you should use senders. And with StateSpecs if you browse "any syntax word implementors" by senders seach you will see all possible usage cases. And if I move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class you can easilly see all possible expressions in one place.
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
With StateSpecs it should be
foo should be a kind of: Bar
And as I said before It is simple task to support all Phexample expressions by StateSpecs pragmas
Best regards, Denis
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Sometimes the best solution is not the best solution."
Ok. I can do this. I think showing examples from project wiki page is enough. Plus demo of how extend syntax sugar and how to use stubs. What people really want to see about mock objects framework? 2013/3/27 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>
If you can write step by step instruction what to show, I can do it. Right now all my time is used to prepare my own presentation, so I can't do it myself.
uko
On 27 беÑ. 2013, at 18:41, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/3/27 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>
Perhaps Mocketry would be a good topic for a "Show us your projects" session. Then we can try to go into a couple of more details.
Unfortunately I can't participate conference this year
Cheers, Doru
On Mar 27, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
Sounds good to me.
On 26 беÑ. 2013, at 23:00, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2013-03-26, at 19:45, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com>
wrote:
2013/3/26 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>
Ok, and what if we will change behavior a bit so if no definitions
were
found it will send the incoming message to enclosed object? This way it will work like phexample but will also allow to define some fancy DSL.
We can copy all phexample syntax methods into single class inside StateSpecs package but replace implementation with pragmas approach. So anybody can browse implementors like usual and it will not required any special cases.
How I can influence your interest, guys? I can provide cleaning, comments, improvements to StateSpecs. I opened for your requirements. Phexample become quite popular and can be part of Pharo sometimes. Mocketry/StateSpecs used by people too. It would be bad if this packages can't be used together.
sorry for starting the whole rant :) I am veery busy at least until tomorrow
Yuriy we can discuss that after tomorrow? I would as well appreciate some common solution to avoid the selector clash.
On 26 беÑ. 2013, at 07:46, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello 2013/3/26 Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com>
Definitely StateSpec looks more mature and can be used in a more flexible way. But I am not a big fan of the pragma magic. Why? It breaks all tools for me :/. If I see a message send I want to be able to: - browse it, so I can see who implements it? - debug it directly to get to the real method.
SateSpec does indeed help writing readable code by allowing almost grammatically correct sentences. However I don't think this is the way to program. I am a big fan of stupid english:
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
If I want to figure out how the first one works, I can simply browse the implementors of #should and/or #isKindOf: where is the StateSpec version I am lost. I have to rely on "contains string literal" to get the sources, for me that is very strange.
I think main thing you want is easilly explore all available should syntax. And StateSpecs can be easilly adopted for such task. We can just move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class. So you can open this class and see what available.
To get implementors of some "should expression" you should use senders search of syntax words instead of implementors. Syntax words in StateSpecs is just method literals ( <syntax: #(be an instance of:)>, #() is just array of symbols).
Interesting that StateSpecs has more explicit syntax system. How you can explore in Phexample expression:
object should be true ?
You have separate PheMatcher>>be and PheMatcher>>true methods and there is no places in code where you can see that this messages can and should be used together. But with StateSpecs you should put pragma with explicit expression like:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with StateSpecs you have full syntax expression at one place which can be easy explored. And for example to support Phexample mesage #beTrue you should just add another pragma:
Equal>>true: anObject <syntax: #(be true)> <syntax: #(beTrue)> ^self return: (IdentitySpec pattern: true)
So with Phexample you can browse implementors of "single word should expressions". But with Phexample if you browse implementors of #be like messages you have no idea how it can be used. In StateSpecs you should use senders. And with StateSpecs if you browse "any syntax word implementors" by senders seach you will see all possible usage cases. And if I move all methods with syntax pragmas to single class you can easilly see all possible expressions in one place.
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
With StateSpecs it should be
foo should be a kind of: Bar
And as I said before It is simple task to support all Phexample expressions by StateSpecs pragmas
Best regards, Denis
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Sometimes the best solution is not the best solution."
Camillo Bruni-3 wrote
Yuriy we can discuss that after tomorrow? I would as well appreciate some common solution to avoid the selector clash.
Bump ;) ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Suggestion-about-Phexample-and-StateSpecs-Mocketry-int... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
2013/5/21 Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com>
Camillo Bruni-3 wrote
Yuriy we can discuss that after tomorrow? I would as well appreciate some common solution to avoid the selector clash.
Bump ;)
I don't remember is it was public conclusion but we agree to try StateSpecs for Phexample. After I finish key features of TxText I will adapt StateSpecs to satisfy Camillo requirements.
----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Suggestion-about-Phexample-and-StateSpecs-Mocketry-int... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 2013-05-21, at 20:19, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/5/21 Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com>
Camillo Bruni-3 wrote
Yuriy we can discuss that after tomorrow? I would as well appreciate some common solution to avoid the selector clash.
Bump ;)
I don't remember is it was public conclusion but we agree to try StateSpecs for Phexample. After I finish key features of TxText I will adapt StateSpecs to satisfy Camillo requirements.
cool! let me know once you're ready ;) (no hurry) and we can do a tryout in Pharo 3.0!
Denis Kudriashov wrote
I don't remember is it was public conclusion but we agree to try StateSpecs for Phexample. After I finish key features of TxText I will adapt StateSpecs to satisfy Camillo requirements.
Double bump ;) I want to try Mocketry, but I'm already using Phexample, so I need them to be compatible... ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Suggestion-about-Phexample-and-StateSpecs-Mocketry-int... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
2013/11/30 Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com>
Denis Kudriashov wrote
I don't remember is it was public conclusion but we agree to try StateSpecs for Phexample. After I finish key features of TxText I will adapt StateSpecs to satisfy Camillo requirements.
Double bump ;) I want to try Mocketry, but I'm already using Phexample, so I need them to be compatible...
Now loading Mocketry will override existed #should implementation. So your Phexample "should expressions" will evaluated by Mocketry system. And if I remember correctly Yuriy added some compatibility messages to Mocketry to make it usage seamless for Phexample tests. Unfortunately I don't have time now to move StateSpecs to Phexample. But I will work on it some day. Best regards, Denis
Hi, I agree with Camillo. When implementing anything you need to think of the costs associated with assessing it. Cheers, Doru On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:28 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2013-03-25, at 21:24, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello
I think you read about Mocketry and know that It provides same "should syntax" DSL like project Phexample.
There is problem between two projects. We both implement #should message in Object class. So when somebody want Phexample Mocketry become broken and vice versa.
In the past I actually only read about Phexample tests reusage idea with #given message. And I didn't know that It provides "should syntax" too. Now I read about it and look at code (thank's Yuriy Tymchuk) and I have some suggestions about it.
First few words about state of Mocketry project.
Mocketry is not based on SSpec (I was google such wrong opinion). It is just implement SSpec idea about executable specifications and "should syntax". And specifications part with DSL was extracted from Mocketry to StateSpecs project. So Mocketry is only about mocks and behaviour specs.
Idea of executable specifications is not about replacement "assert syntax" with "should syntax". It is about building reusable first class objects which can validate domain objects. For example there are EqualitySpec, ElementsCountSpec, ClassSpec. All this specs present "valid state" of objects. They know how to validate objects. State specs can be used in tests, UI and any other domain where you want put descriptions about what it mean "valid object". I start use StateSpecs in Presenty to build object editor. With specs I put requirements on model aspects. I am sure Magritte provides something similar in description objects.
So StateSpecs solve very general problem: how to describe validation rules for objects and how to make such descriptions reusable. To make it convenient and readable StateSpecs provides two kind of DSL:
- should syntax to immediately check object state - first class words to create spec instances with more readable way: Instance of: SomeClass, Equal to: #some, Containing item: arrayItem and others
First option can be used in tests instead #assert: expressions. Last can be used in mock message arguments.
StateSpecs provide very simple way to extend it DSL based on pragmas:
Instance of: aClass <syntax: #(be an instance of:)> ^ClassSpec for: aClass
Equal to: anObject <syntax: #(equal:)> <syntax: #(be equal:)> ^self return: (EqualitySpec pattern: anObject)
Containing item: anObject <syntax: #(include:)> ^ElementContainmentSpec requiredElement: anObject
And with this you can write:
object should be an instance of: SomeClass object should equal: #some object should be equal: #some array should include: item.
So with such approach both kind of DSL extended at one place.
Ok. Now my main suggestion. Let's Phexample use StateSpecs for "should syntax". I can provide all "should protocol" of Phexample in StateSpecs. So it will be transparent for current users. It just few extra pragmas and classes in StateSpecs-DSL package. Maybe it is already done by Yuriy Tymchuk. With such integration both projects will just improved.
What do you think?
humm I have ambigous feelings about that. Definitely StateSpec looks more mature and can be used in a more flexible way. But I am not a big fan of the pragma magic. Why? It breaks all tools for me :/. If I see a message send I want to be able to: - browse it, so I can see who implements it? - debug it directly to get to the real method.
SateSpec does indeed help writing readable code by allowing almost grammatically correct sentences. However I don't think this is the way to program. I am a big fan of stupid english:
`foo should isKindOf: Bar` vs. `foo should be an instance of: Bar`
If I want to figure out how the first one works, I can simply browse the implementors of #should and/or #isKindOf: where is the StateSpec version I am lost. I have to rely on "contains string literal" to get the sources, for me that is very strange.
So personally I would go for the simple solution that doesn't introduce yet another indirection meta-level using the pragmas.
For me, complex DSLs only work if you write the proper debugging tools for it.
Sorry for so much negative energy :) but you can try to convince me otherwise :)
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Problem solving efficiency grows with the abstractness level of problem understanding."
participants (6)
-
Camillo Bruni -
Denis Kudriashov -
Sean P. DeNigris -
stephane ducasse -
Tudor Girba -
Yuriy Tymchuk