[Pharo-project] access to pharoextras repository
Hi, Could anyone provide me with access to the PharoExtras team on STHub? I would need to modify a bit the ConfigurationOfXMLParser to load both Core and Tests by default. Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't."
aaan, you're a member On 2013-03-09, at 03:28, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
Could anyone provide me with access to the PharoExtras team on STHub?
I would need to modify a bit the ConfigurationOfXMLParser to load both Core and Tests by default.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't."
It would be good to have a discussion because all the packages I did do not follow this. what is the point to have a Tests group if the core and default already load them?
Hi,
Could anyone provide me with access to the PharoExtras team on STHub?
I would need to modify a bit the ConfigurationOfXMLParser to load both Core and Tests by default.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't."
Hi, On Mar 9, 2013, at 12:27 PM, stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse@free.fr> wrote:
It would be good to have a discussion because all the packages I did do not follow this.
what is the point to have a Tests group if the core and default already load them?
That is not what I said :). We often get at least two groups in a configuration: - Core - the real code - Tests - the associated tests The question is what should be loaded by 'default' (this is what gets loaded when you do not specify anything in the dependency). By saying spec group: 'default' with: #('Core') we say that by default we do not load tests. If we do not specify any 'default', it will take by default everything, hence it will be equivalent in our case with spec group: 'default' with: #('Core' 'Tests'); I would want to favor the loading of tests by default. That is why, either we explicitly put the 'Tests' group in the 'default' group, or we do not specify a 'default' at all in trivial configurations like the ConfigurationOfXMLParser. Cheers, Doru
Hi,
Could anyone provide me with access to the PharoExtras team on STHub?
I would need to modify a bit the ConfigurationOfXMLParser to load both Core and Tests by default.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't."
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Speaking louder won't make the point worthier."
That is not what I said :).
ok I see :)
We often get at least two groups in a configuration: - Core - the real code - Tests - the associated tests
Yes I tried to get consistent.
The question is what should be loaded by 'default' (this is what gets loaded when you do not specify anything in the dependency). Ok I forgot that one.
By saying spec group: 'default' with: #('Core') we say that by default we do not load tests.
Yes and by default I would prefer to get the tests too :)
If we do not specify any 'default', it will take by default everything, hence it will be equivalent in our case with spec group: 'default' with: #('Core' 'Tests');
Does it really load everything? So default is ALL by default --- I forgot again.
I would want to favor the loading of tests by default.
Me too.
That is why, either we explicitly put the 'Tests' group in the 'default' group,
- I would go for this behavior because I do not like implicit behavior when this is about configuration and I will start to write comments in all the configurations "default is used when nothing is specified by default it will load everything but better specify what everything is" So once we agree I will start editing configurations like a mad. Stef
or we do not specify a 'default' at all in trivial configurations like the ConfigurationOfXMLParser.
Cheers, Doru
Hi,
Could anyone provide me with access to the PharoExtras team on STHub?
I would need to modify a bit the ConfigurationOfXMLParser to load both Core and Tests by default.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't."
-- www.tudorgirba.com
"Speaking louder won't make the point worthier."
stephane ducasse wrote:
That is why, either we explicitly put the 'Tests' group in the 'default' group,
- I would go for this behavior because I do not like implicit behavior when this is about configuration and I will start to write comments in all the configurations
"default is used when nothing is specified by default it will load everything but better specify what everything is"
So once we agree I will start editing configurations like a mad.
Stef
In you book chapter about Configurations you might hint "why" it is preferred to include Tests in default. For me... * people fresh to the package get some examples. * encourages new tests to be added. Having to find & load a 'Tests' group at a later time would be an impediment to this. You might also consider a convention for an 'Examples' group.
yes good idea.! On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:33 AM, Ben Coman <btc@openInWorld.com> wrote:
stephane ducasse wrote:
That is why, either we explicitly put the 'Tests' group in the 'default' group,
- I would go for this behavior because I do not like implicit behavior when this is about configuration and I will start to write comments in all the configurations "default is used when nothing is specified by default it will load everything but better specify what everything is"
So once we agree I will start editing configurations like a mad.
Stef
In you book chapter about Configurations you might hint "why" it is preferred to include Tests in default. For me... * people fresh to the package get some examples. * encourages new tests to be added. Having to find & load a 'Tests' group at a later time would be an impediment to this.
You might also consider a convention for an 'Examples' group.
I added a section with this discussion to the Metacello chapter :) Stef On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:33 AM, Ben Coman <btc@openInWorld.com> wrote:
stephane ducasse wrote:
That is why, either we explicitly put the 'Tests' group in the 'default' group,
- I would go for this behavior because I do not like implicit behavior when this is about configuration and I will start to write comments in all the configurations "default is used when nothing is specified by default it will load everything but better specify what everything is"
So once we agree I will start editing configurations like a mad.
Stef
In you book chapter about Configurations you might hint "why" it is preferred to include Tests in default. For me... * people fresh to the package get some examples. * encourages new tests to be added. Having to find & load a 'Tests' group at a later time would be an impediment to this.
You might also consider a convention for an 'Examples' group.
Hi doru I addressed your point in XMLParser XMLWriter OPAX Pastell Soup and I will pay attention that default always load the tests too. Stef
Great! Doru On Mar 12, 2013, at 10:14 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
Hi doru
I addressed your point in XMLParser XMLWriter OPAX Pastell Soup
and I will pay attention that default always load the tests too.
Stef
-- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing should have the right to be different."
participants (5)
-
Ben Coman -
Camillo Bruni -
stephane ducasse -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Tudor Girba