[Pharo-project] Tagging methods for expected lint failures
I've looked at some of the "Message sent but not implemented:" issues that Damien created. In tests where classes and methods are created at runtime, Lint incorrectly complains. Do we use pragmas to mark the expected failures (see http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/blog/ignoring-lint-rules)? Is this lint pragma honored by the version of Lint that we use? Adrian ___________________ http://www.adrian-lienhard.ch/
I hope so because I started to do use. On Feb 21, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
I've looked at some of the "Message sent but not implemented:" issues that Damien created. In tests where classes and methods are created at runtime, Lint incorrectly complains.
Do we use pragmas to mark the expected failures (see http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/blog/ignoring-lint-rules)? Is this lint pragma honored by the version of Lint that we use?
Adrian ___________________ http://www.adrian-lienhard.ch/
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Normally yes, it should work. However some lint rules don't work on a single method but on a class or multiple classes. In these cases the pragmas don't really work and scale well. I could think of a solution here, but this is not implemented yet. In any case, if there is something wrong with the marking please report to me. Even if this is in the base code for more than a year, it is quite rarely used. As I said I prefer to fix the issues. Also I started to exclude certain rules by default. For example, it always complained about ever single test method that it is never sent. So this test is not run on subclasses of TestCase anymore. Lukas On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
I hope so because I started to do use.
On Feb 21, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
I've looked at some of the "Message sent but not implemented:" issues that Damien created. In tests where classes and methods are created at runtime, Lint incorrectly complains.
Do we use pragmas to mark the expected failures (see http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/blog/ignoring-lint-rules)? Is this lint pragma honored by the version of Lint that we use?
Adrian ___________________ http://www.adrian-lienhard.ch/
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
On Feb 22, 2009, at 12:52 AM, Lukas Renggli wrote:
Normally yes, it should work. However some lint rules don't work on a single method but on a class or multiple classes. In these cases the pragmas don't really work and scale well. I could think of a solution here, but this is not implemented yet.
In any case, if there is something wrong with the marking please report to me. Even if this is in the base code for more than a year, it is quite rarely used. As I said I prefer to fix the issues.
:) me too but the problem is that some rules are too broad. So we will learn and improve. Stef
Also I started to exclude certain rules by default. For example, it always complained about ever single test method that it is never sent. So this test is not run on subclasses of TestCase anymore.
Lukas
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
I hope so because I started to do use.
On Feb 21, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
I've looked at some of the "Message sent but not implemented:" issues that Damien created. In tests where classes and methods are created at runtime, Lint incorrectly complains.
Do we use pragmas to mark the expected failures (see http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/blog/ignoring-lint-rules)? Is this lint pragma honored by the version of Lint that we use?
Adrian ___________________ http://www.adrian-lienhard.ch/
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
participants (3)
-
Adrian Lienhard -
Lukas Renggli -
Stéphane Ducasse