Call for design for a literal programming doc similar to PythonDocTest
Hi all I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html I'm talking about basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'" Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'> We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library. I was thinking about basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' " Do you have any idea? I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented. We as a community should take this and build an super cool system. I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works! Object >>> aResultingObject "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated test. We can check that it is true." " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' " ^ self = aResultingObject Stef
Hi, I think this is an interesting idea. However, one thing to keep in mind is that one reason why these solutions exist is because they assume no UI environment. Thus, the only thing they have is text and the solution is built around it. In Pharo, we can think of concatenating information in the environment. If we have a casual connection between examples and the code they exemplify, the interface can provide all this information at the same time. The advantage here is that the syntax remains simple. At the same time, we also want to have Pillar more thoroughly supported in our tools. Could it be that we could extend Pillar to support literate programming? Cheers, Doru
On Sep 15, 2016, at 8:45 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi all
I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html
I'm talking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'"
Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library.
I was thinking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename
'gloops.taz' "
Do you have any idea?
I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented. We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.
I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works!
Object >>> aResultingObject "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated test. We can check that it is true."
" '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename
'gloops.taz' "
^ self = aResultingObject
Stef
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "It's not how it is, it is how we see it."
2016-09-15 17:09 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>:
However, one thing to keep in mind is that one reason why these solutions exist is because they assume no UI environment. Thus, the only thing they have is text and the solution is built around it.
In Pharo, we can think of concatenating information in the environment. If we have a casual connection between examples and the code they exemplify, the interface can provide all this information at the same time. The advantage here is that the syntax remains simple.
+1 I wouldn't like that syntax, nor PharoDoc (a la JavaDoc), nor anything "polluting" the code that way. The comment or examples can be attributes of the method itself, just like the class comment are today. Regards! Esteban A. Maringolo
Le 15/9/16 à 22:16, Esteban A. Maringolo a écrit :
2016-09-15 17:09 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>:
However, one thing to keep in mind is that one reason why these solutions exist is because they assume no UI environment. Thus, the only thing they have is text and the solution is built around it.
In Pharo, we can think of concatenating information in the environment. If we have a casual connection between examples and the code they exemplify, the interface can provide all this information at the same time. The advantage here is that the syntax remains simple. +1
I wouldn't like that syntax, nor PharoDoc (a la JavaDoc), nor anything "polluting" the code that way.
It is not polution, it is documentation. Apparently you are not the guy that got the HUGE pain to write the method comment and the chapter about FileSystem. I'm probably too stupid. To understand what each method was doing I had to TRY and ERROR. I recently try to understand certain behavior of the Date package and same syndrome. Without an example it is impossible to get **exactly** what the method is doing. So that you do not use it in your code is your style and life. Now Pharo must improve from that perspective. I do not want to read five methods with different context to understand that basename includes the extension '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename is 'gloops.taz and that name does not. Sorry but as one of the leader of Pharo if I do not have such exigence and vision for our system then I should go do something else. Stef
The comment or examples can be attributes of the method itself, just like the class comment are today.
Regards!
Esteban A. Maringolo
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
I think this is an interesting idea.
However, one thing to keep in mind is that one reason why these solutions exist is because they assume no UI environment. Thus, the only thing they have is text and the solution is built around it.
In Pharo, we can think of concatenating information in the environment. If we have a casual connection between examples and the code they exemplify, the interface can provide all this information at the same time. The advantage here is that the syntax remains simple.
At the same time, we also want to have Pillar more thoroughly supported in our tools. Could it be that we could extend Pillar to support literate programming?
Just I backup this idea. You should have a look to http://orgmode.org/ with babel mode that allows to mix different programming languages in the same document: http://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/ Lot of ideas should be borrowed for doing a better Pillar I guess. The only problem of org-mode is that you don't have the link to the live environment that we are used to. Having a org-mode clone in Pharo (i.e Pillar+++) would be great. At the same time, this is a long term solution. We also need an immediate solution like the one proposed by Stéphane. Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/
2016-09-15 20:45 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr>:
Hi all
I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html
I'm talking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'"
Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library.
I was thinking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
Do you have any idea?
I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented. We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.
I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works!
Object >>> aResultingObject "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated test. We can check that it is true."
" '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename
'gloops.taz' "
^ self = aResultingObject
Ok, this is a quick hack ( do not look at the code :), yes using regex here is a bit fragil) You can add code in comments between backticks (`) The formatter will highlight the text like smalltalk code (or not if it is not valid code). + an icon styler with an icon showing a warning icon for faulty code or an information icon otherwise you can click on the icon, if the code is an association expression -> result it executes the expression and compares it with the result, (with assert:equals: ) opens debugger if it fails and does nothing otherwise if the code is just an expression, it opens an inspector. This is just one way to do some tests and experiments with this idea, don 't yet know if this is a good idea or if we can / should find a better way to connect code with examples. first result, I find expressions in comments, highlighted as code, confusing :) (file in attached cs in a recent pharo 6.0 and look at the method AbstractFileReference>>#baseName . Or add an expression with backticks in a method comment ` your code here `
Stef
I will play with it :) I was thinking to have >>> instead of association to make sure that we can disambiguate from -> Thanks for the protoype. This kind of little action can change completely the face of Pharo library. I always ***LOVED*** little examples inside method when I discovered Smalltalk. This plus examples at the class side and link with nautilus execution -> gt inspector will really improve the situation. Stef Le 15/9/16 à 22:35, Nicolai Hess a écrit :
2016-09-15 20:45 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>>:
Hi all
I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html <https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html>
I'm talking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'"
Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library.
I was thinking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
Do you have any idea?
I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented. We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.
I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works!
Object >>> aResultingObject "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated test. We can check that it is true."
" '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
^ self = aResultingObject
Ok, this is a quick hack ( do not look at the code :), yes using regex here is a bit fragil)
You can add code in comments between backticks (`) The formatter will highlight the text like smalltalk code (or not if it is not valid code). + an icon styler with an icon showing a warning icon for faulty code or an information icon otherwise you can click on the icon,
if the code is an association
expression -> result
it executes the expression and compares it with the result, (with assert:equals: ) opens debugger if it fails and does nothing otherwise
if the code is just an expression, it opens an inspector.
This is just one way to do some tests and experiments with this idea, don 't yet know if this is a good idea or if we can / should find a better way to connect code with examples.
first result, I find expressions in comments, highlighted as code, confusing :)
(file in attached cs in a recent pharo 6.0 and look at the method AbstractFileReference>>#baseName . Or add an expression with backticks in a method comment ` your code here `
Stef
Hi nicolai I was thinking that I would prefer to have "` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.`" instead of ` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.` <- suceeds, no output So that we can use ` in the future in plain code. Also it has the advantage that it is backward compatible. Else we could have `` But I do not know. Tell me what you think. I would love to browse the complete system to convert existing one liner with such Stef
Ok, this is a quick hack ( do not look at the code :), yes using regex here is a bit fragil)
You can add code in comments between backticks (`) The formatter will highlight the text like smalltalk code (or not if it is not valid code). + an icon styler with an icon showing a warning icon for faulty code or an information icon otherwise you can click on the icon,
if the code is an association
expression -> result
it executes the expression and compares it with the result, (with assert:equals: ) opens debugger if it fails and does nothing otherwise
if the code is just an expression, it opens an inspector.
This is just one way to do some tests and experiments with this idea, don 't yet know if this is a good idea or if we can / should find a better way to connect code with examples.
first result, I find expressions in comments, highlighted as code, confusing :)
(file in attached cs in a recent pharo 6.0 and look at the method AbstractFileReference>>#baseName . Or add an expression with backticks in a method comment ` your code here `
Stef
Hi, I was thinking on the metro way to work, and I also saw that this discussion is actually split in multiple threads, so it was not easy to follow :). Some of my feelings about this: - Pragmas are nice because they are easy to "interpret". Parsing them is already provided. However, putting expressions or long examples into them starts to be awkward. It seems it's pushin the syntax too much, isn't it? - Comments are nice because they are ignored! But right now comments are simple plain text. This thread is to convert *some* comments into executable examples. But this should be just some comments and not all of them, am I right? So what happens when we want to have comments written in Pillar for example? What I mean is that having examples is just an example of something we would like to do with comments. But we can also imagine having comment interpreters. Something like this: ">>>PillarDoc !This is a Pillar title And I'm just a paragraph And I can link a class like @Object. " ">>>ExampleDoc self assert: '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename equals: 'gloops.taz' " What I like from this is that: - comments that do not specify an interpreter are just plain old text. Thus backward compatible. - comments that specify an interpreter that is not present, are just plain old text. A decoupling as it happens with the settings. - an ExampleDoc interpreter can be just a test case instance, thus we could use assertions instead of special >>> messages. Things that would require more thought: - there is an overlap between these interpreted comments and pragmas... There are for sure cases that solutions can be imagined with both. - there is an overlap between examples and test cases. I saw many people that argued that already. I am not against examples, but I think we should (whichever implementation is chosen) draw a line and set some guidelines. Stef, probably you have already in mind when you want a test case and when an example and what's the distance. It would be good if we can transform that implicit thought in something explicit (maybe even a lint rule in the future?) Guille -------- Original Message --------
Hi nicolai
I was thinking that I would prefer to have
"` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.`"
instead of ` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.` <- suceeds, no output
So that we can use ` in the future in plain code. Also it has the advantage that it is backward compatible.
Else we could have
`` But I do not know.
Tell me what you think.
I would love to browse the complete system to convert existing one liner with such
Stef
Ok, this is a quick hack ( do not look at the code :), yes using regex here is a bit fragil)
You can add code in comments between backticks (`) The formatter will highlight the text like smalltalk code (or not if it is not valid code). + an icon styler with an icon showing a warning icon for faulty code or an information icon otherwise you can click on the icon,
if the code is an association
expression -> result
it executes the expression and compares it with the result, (with assert:equals: ) opens debugger if it fails and does nothing otherwise
if the code is just an expression, it opens an inspector.
This is just one way to do some tests and experiments with this idea, don 't yet know if this is a good idea or if we can / should find a better way to connect code with examples.
first result, I find expressions in comments, highlighted as code, confusing :)
(file in attached cs in a recent pharo 6.0 and look at the method AbstractFileReference>>#baseName . Or add an expression with backticks in a method comment ` your code here `
Stef
On 16 Sep 2016, at 10:02, Guille Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I was thinking on the metro way to work, and I also saw that this discussion is actually split in multiple threads, so it was not easy to follow :).
Some of my feelings about this:
- Pragmas are nice because they are easy to "interpret". Parsing them is already provided. However, putting expressions or long examples into them starts to be awkward. It seems it's pushin the syntax too much, isn't it?
- Comments are nice because they are ignored! But right now comments are simple plain text. This thread is to convert *some* comments into executable examples. But this should be just some comments and not all of them, am I right? So what happens when we want to have comments written in Pillar for example? What I mean is that having examples is just an example of something we would like to do with comments.
But we can also imagine having comment interpreters. Something like this:
">>>PillarDoc !This is a Pillar title And I'm just a paragraph And I can link a class like @Object. "
">>>ExampleDoc self assert: '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename equals: 'gloops.taz' "
What I like from this is that: - comments that do not specify an interpreter are just plain old text. Thus backward compatible. - comments that specify an interpreter that is not present, are just plain old text. A decoupling as it happens with the settings. - an ExampleDoc interpreter can be just a test case instance, thus we could use assertions instead of special >>> messages.
Things that would require more thought: - there is an overlap between these interpreted comments and pragmas... There are for sure cases that solutions can be imagined with both. - there is an overlap between examples and test cases. I saw many people that argued that already. I am not against examples, but I think we should (whichever implementation is chosen) draw a line and set some guidelines. Stef, probably you have already in mind when you want a test case and when an example and what's the distance. It would be good if we can transform that implicit thought in something explicit (maybe even a lint rule in the future?)
+1 to all :) Esteban
Guille
-------- Original Message --------
Hi nicolai
I was thinking that I would prefer to have
"` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.`"
instead of ` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.` <- suceeds, no output
So that we can use ` in the future in plain code. Also it has the advantage that it is backward compatible.
Else we could have
`` But I do not know.
Tell me what you think.
I would love to browse the complete system to convert existing one liner with such
Stef
Ok, this is a quick hack ( do not look at the code :), yes using regex here is a bit fragil)
You can add code in comments between backticks (`) The formatter will highlight the text like smalltalk code (or not if it is not valid code). + an icon styler with an icon showing a warning icon for faulty code or an information icon otherwise you can click on the icon,
if the code is an association
expression -> result
it executes the expression and compares it with the result, (with assert:equals: ) opens debugger if it fails and does nothing otherwise
if the code is just an expression, it opens an inspector.
This is just one way to do some tests and experiments with this idea, don 't yet know if this is a good idea or if we can / should find a better way to connect code with examples.
first result, I find expressions in comments, highlighted as code, confusing :)
(file in attached cs in a recent pharo 6.0 and look at the method AbstractFileReference>>#baseName . Or add an expression with backticks in a method comment ` your code here `
Stef
Hi,
I was thinking on the metro way to work, and I also saw that this discussion is actually split in multiple threads, so it was not easy to follow :).
Some of my feelings about this:
- Pragmas are nice because they are easy to "interpret". Parsing them is already provided. However, putting expressions or long examples into them starts to be awkward. It seems it's pushin the syntax too much, isn't it?
- Comments are nice because they are ignored! But right now comments are simple plain text. This thread is to convert *some* comments into executable examples. But this should be just some comments and not all of them, am I right? So what happens when we want to have comments written in Pillar for example? What I mean is that having examples is just an example of something we would like to do with comments.
But we can also imagine having comment interpreters. Something like this:
">>>PillarDoc !This is a Pillar title And I'm just a paragraph And I can link a class like @Object. "
">>>ExampleDoc self assert: '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename equals: 'gloops.taz' "
We could have for class comment ">>>UMLDescription UMLClass named: 'Visitor' Arrow from: But this can start to be complex "
What I like from this is that: - comments that do not specify an interpreter are just plain old text. Thus backward compatible. - comments that specify an interpreter that is not present, are just plain old text. A decoupling as it happens with the settings. - an ExampleDoc interpreter can be just a test case instance, thus we could use assertions instead of special >>> messages. I do not know because all the comments should be pillar compatible. If you do not use pillar commands you just get plain text. You see we can easily detect comment too: if a text contains >>> then it is a doc
Then ExampleDoc is an extra syntax. I'm not found with the self assert: because it feels like something coming out of nowhere. We will have to explain: yes self is bound to an instance of the testCase... and to me this is implementation details: if I give expr1 and expr2 the implementation can build self assert: expr1 equals: expr2 I liked the simplicity of nicolai' solution I would just have a comment and a message >>> so that we => nearly no syntax change => something really lightweight and optional What I care is that - we get simple examples right in the method - one line no more. - that these examples are correct and always validated (I do not see them as tests), their values is more in the correct documentation than the tests. They are basic output. I do not want to have full code in the method, in that case this should go one class side example or plain tests.
Things that would require more thought: - there is an overlap between these interpreted comments and pragmas... There are for sure cases that solutions can be imagined with both.
I do not think that expressions can fit inside pragmas
- there is an overlap between examples and test cases. I saw many people that argued that already. I am not against examples, but I think we should (whichever implementation is chosen) draw a line and set some guidelines. To me I do not care that they are tests. Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated. I do not expect to run them but the system can garantee that they are correct.
Stef, probably you have already in mind when you want a test case and when an example and what's the distance. It would be good if we can transform that implicit thought in something explicit (maybe even a lint rule in the future?) I do not get what you mean here.
For me a test is a scenario. If I do that and that then this happens a test can use a class example Now for me a test should not rely one a online part of method comment. These onliners are just make the method comments better.
Guille
-------- Original Message --------
Hi nicolai
I was thinking that I would prefer to have
"` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.`"
instead of ` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.` <- suceeds, no output
So that we can use ` in the future in plain code. Also it has the advantage that it is backward compatible.
Else we could have
`` But I do not know.
Tell me what you think.
I would love to browse the complete system to convert existing one liner with such
Stef
Ok, this is a quick hack ( do not look at the code :), yes using regex here is a bit fragil)
You can add code in comments between backticks (`) The formatter will highlight the text like smalltalk code (or not if it is not valid code). + an icon styler with an icon showing a warning icon for faulty code or an information icon otherwise you can click on the icon,
if the code is an association
expression -> result
it executes the expression and compares it with the result, (with assert:equals: ) opens debugger if it fails and does nothing otherwise
if the code is just an expression, it opens an inspector.
This is just one way to do some tests and experiments with this idea, don 't yet know if this is a good idea or if we can / should find a better way to connect code with examples.
first result, I find expressions in comments, highlighted as code, confusing :)
(file in attached cs in a recent pharo 6.0 and look at the method AbstractFileReference>>#baseName . Or add an expression with backticks in a method comment ` your code here `
Stef
Hi 2016-09-16 13:21 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr>:
- there is an overlap between examples and test cases. I saw many people that argued that already. I am not against examples, but I think we should (whichever implementation is chosen) draw a line and set some guidelines.
To me I do not care that they are tests. Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated. I do not expect to run them but the system can garantee that they are correct.
How it could work? Somebody need to press button to check all comments are valid. No?
Hi
2016-09-16 13:21 GMT+02:00 stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>>:
- there is an overlap between examples and test cases. I saw many people that argued that already. I am not against examples, but I think we should (whichever implementation is chosen) draw a line and set some guidelines.
To me I do not care that they are tests. Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated. I do not expect to run them but the system can garantee that they are correct.
How it could work? Somebody need to press button to check all comments are valid. No?
the integration run the validation and says that system documentation is ok. We do that all the time with Quqlity rules.
Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with the test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ? You're saying: *Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated.* That can also be applied to test we've already had with SUnit. If the only difference you want is to display the test next to the method, then it's an IDE problem, nothing has to be changed but the IDE. In python they have no other choices than putting tests in comments because their IDE is a text editor, they cannot create other panes or anything like that. On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:21 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi,
I was thinking on the metro way to work, and I also saw that this discussion is actually split in multiple threads, so it was not easy to follow :).
Some of my feelings about this:
- Pragmas are nice because they are easy to "interpret". Parsing them is already provided. However, putting expressions or long examples into them starts to be awkward. It seems it's pushin the syntax too much, isn't it?
- Comments are nice because they are ignored! But right now comments are simple plain text. This thread is to convert *some* comments into executable examples. But this should be just some comments and not all of them, am I right? So what happens when we want to have comments written in Pillar for example? What I mean is that having examples is just an example of something we would like to do with comments.
But we can also imagine having comment interpreters. Something like this:
">>>PillarDoc !This is a Pillar title And I'm just a paragraph And I can link a class like @Object. "
">>>ExampleDoc self assert: '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename equals: 'gloops.taz' "
We could have for class comment
">>>UMLDescription UMLClass named: 'Visitor'
Arrow from:
But this can start to be complex "
What I like from this is that: - comments that do not specify an interpreter are just plain old text. Thus backward compatible. - comments that specify an interpreter that is not present, are just plain old text. A decoupling as it happens with the settings. - an ExampleDoc interpreter can be just a test case instance, thus we could use assertions instead of special >>> messages.
I do not know because all the comments should be pillar compatible. If you do not use pillar commands you just get plain text. You see we can easily detect comment too: if a text contains >>> then it is a doc
Then ExampleDoc is an extra syntax.
I'm not found with the self assert: because it feels like something coming out of nowhere. We will have to explain: yes self is bound to an instance of the testCase... and to me this is implementation details: if I give expr1 and expr2 the implementation can build self assert: expr1 equals: expr2
I liked the simplicity of nicolai' solution I would just have a comment and a message >>> so that we => nearly no syntax change => something really lightweight and optional
What I care is that
- we get simple examples right in the method - one line no more. - that these examples are correct and always validated (I do not see them as tests), their values is more in the correct documentation than the tests. They are basic output. I do not want to have full code in the method, in that case this should go one class side example or plain tests.
Things that would require more thought: - there is an overlap between these interpreted comments and pragmas... There are for sure cases that solutions can be imagined with both.
I do not think that expressions can fit inside pragmas
- there is an overlap between examples and test cases. I saw many people that argued that already. I am not against examples, but I think we should (whichever implementation is chosen) draw a line and set some guidelines.
To me I do not care that they are tests. Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated. I do not expect to run them but the system can garantee that they are correct.
Stef, probably you have already in mind when you want a test case and when an example and what's the distance. It would be good if we can transform that implicit thought in something explicit (maybe even a lint rule in the future?)
I do not get what you mean here.
For me a test is a scenario. If I do that and that then this happens a test can use a class example
Now for me a test should not rely one a online part of method comment.
These onliners are just make the method comments better.
Guille
-------- Original Message --------
Hi nicolai
I was thinking that I would prefer to have
"` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.`"
instead of ` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.` <- suceeds, no output
So that we can use ` in the future in plain code. Also it has the advantage that it is backward compatible.
Else we could have
`` But I do not know.
Tell me what you think.
I would love to browse the complete system to convert existing one liner with such
Stef
Ok, this is a quick hack ( do not look at the code :), yes using regex here is a bit fragil)
You can add code in comments between backticks (`) The formatter will highlight the text like smalltalk code (or not if it is not valid code). + an icon styler with an icon showing a warning icon for faulty code or an information icon otherwise you can click on the icon,
if the code is an association
expression -> result
it executes the expression and compares it with the result, (with assert:equals: ) opens debugger if it fails and does nothing otherwise
if the code is just an expression, it opens an inspector.
This is just one way to do some tests and experiments with this idea, don 't yet know if this is a good idea or if we can / should find a better way to connect code with examples.
first result, I find expressions in comments, highlighted as code, confusing :)
(file in attached cs in a recent pharo 6.0 and look at the method AbstractFileReference>>#baseName . Or add an expression with backticks in a method comment ` your code here `
Stef
2016-09-16 13:42 GMT+02:00 Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com>:
Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with the test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ?
You're saying: *Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated.* That can also be applied to test we've already had with SUnit. If the only difference you want is to display the test next to the method, then it's an IDE problem, nothing has to be changed but the IDE.
In python they have no other choices than putting tests in comments because their IDE is a text editor, they cannot create other panes or anything like that.
It is of course true. But Stef suggestion is really much much simpler. It is just convention how to write examples inside comments. Then tools could work with them and Nicolai already provide simple extension for Nautilus. We already has a lot of comments with examples inside. Making them discoverable and testable will be nice.
+ 1 Changing the language metamodel for simple validated comments is a huge effort for nothing. Clement is good at VM level but not at other level :) Stef Le 16/9/16 à 14:18, Denis Kudriashov a écrit :
2016-09-16 13:42 GMT+02:00 Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com <mailto:bera.clement@gmail.com>>:
Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with the test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ?
You're saying: /Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated./ That can also be applied to test we've already had with SUnit. If the only difference you want is to display the test next to the method, then it's an IDE problem, nothing has to be changed but the IDE.
In python they have no other choices than putting tests in comments because their IDE is a text editor, they cannot create other panes or anything like that.
It is of course true. But Stef suggestion is really much much simpler. It is just convention how to write examples inside comments. Then tools could work with them and Nicolai already provide simple extension for Nautilus. We already has a lot of comments with examples inside. Making them discoverable and testable will be nice.
Hi,
On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:37 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
+ 1
Changing the language metamodel for simple validated comments is a huge effort for nothing. Clement is good at VM level but not at other level :)
I think there is a misunderstanding :). I do not see any implication to the language meta-model in the remark of Clement. In fact, I expressed exactly the same opinion, that the design of things like PythonDoc comes from the fact that those people do not rely on an IDE, so their design focuses on the only thing they have: source code. Clement remarked that we already have SUnit tests and he suggested that we could just enhance the IDE to present them next to the methods. This might actually be less straightforward with SUnit because it was not made for preserving links to the code, but it can work out of the box with something like GTExamples. Cheers, Doru
Stef
Le 16/9/16 à 14:18, Denis Kudriashov a écrit :
2016-09-16 13:42 GMT+02:00 Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com>: Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with the test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ?
You're saying: Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated. That can also be applied to test we've already had with SUnit. If the only difference you want is to display the test next to the method, then it's an IDE problem, nothing has to be changed but the IDE.
In python they have no other choices than putting tests in comments because their IDE is a text editor, they cannot create other panes or anything like that.
It is of course true. But Stef suggestion is really much much simpler. It is just convention how to write examples inside comments. Then tools could work with them and Nicolai already provide simple extension for Nautilus. We already has a lot of comments with examples inside. Making them discoverable and testable will be nice.
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Yesterday is a fact. Tomorrow is a possibility. Today is a challenge."
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:37 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
+ 1
Changing the language metamodel for simple validated comments is a huge effort for nothing. Clement is good at VM level but not at other level :)
I think there is a misunderstanding :). I do not see any implication to the language meta-model in the remark of Clement.
In fact, I expressed exactly the same opinion, that the design of things like PythonDoc comes from the fact that those people do not rely on an IDE, so their design focuses on the only thing they have: source code. Clement remarked that we already have SUnit tests and he suggested that we could just enhance the IDE to present them next to the methods. This might actually be less straightforward with SUnit because it was not made for preserving links to the code, but it can work out of the box with something like GTExamples.
Yes, the language meta-model is already too complex in Pharo IMHO, let's not make it even more complex. I should have precised that's not what I meant if this was not obvious to everyone. *1. Method docs with examples, so a user can see an example usage of a method (sunit test methods sometimes aren't good "examples")* *2. We already had (and still have) some method docs where the example code just won't work anymore because the methods or classes used* Nicolai, I'm suggesting to show the SUnit test code (or example code, or whatever) next to the method, and being able to create a unit test this way instead of only the existing green/red button and the "browse tests" entry in the right click menu. For existing methods having in their comment executable code to test how they work (as you mentioned), the code can just be moved to the test shown in the pane next to it (through a script discovering all cases like that or manually). The example usage would still be shown next to the code for the user, except it would already be under version control as existing SUnit tests are, it can now have syntax coloring which is not present in comments, it's automatically executed by each Pharo build through SUnit hence detecting regressions and the meta-model is not getting more complex at all. As Tudor said, it's only about IDE changes. I believe that some SUnit tests are sometimes not good examples because they're higher level tests (application tests, business tests) while as for python doctests it's only relevant to show unit tests next to the method the unit test validates. Currently I believe Nautilus discovers tests and add the green/red button based on name conventions. Foo>>bar has this feature if FooTests>>testBar is implemented. So it's either a matter of improving this heuristic or educating the community with this existing name convention. In any case, I don't think it's more changes for the user than having to learn convention in the comments/pragmas.
Cheers, Doru
Stef
Le 16/9/16 à 14:18, Denis Kudriashov a écrit :
2016-09-16 13:42 GMT+02:00 Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com>: Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with the
test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ?
You're saying: Their values is active documentation that can be automatically
validated.
That can also be applied to test we've already had with SUnit. If the only difference you want is to display the test next to the method, then it's an IDE problem, nothing has to be changed but the IDE.
In python they have no other choices than putting tests in comments because their IDE is a text editor, they cannot create other panes or anything like that.
It is of course true. But Stef suggestion is really much much simpler. It is just convention how to write examples inside comments. Then tools could work with them and Nicolai already provide simple extension for Nautilus. We already has a lot of comments with examples inside. Making them discoverable and testable will be nice.
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Yesterday is a fact. Tomorrow is a possibility. Today is a challenge."
2016-09-19 10:33 GMT+02:00 Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:37 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
+ 1
Changing the language metamodel for simple validated comments is a huge effort for nothing. Clement is good at VM level but not at other level :)
I think there is a misunderstanding :). I do not see any implication to the language meta-model in the remark of Clement.
In fact, I expressed exactly the same opinion, that the design of things like PythonDoc comes from the fact that those people do not rely on an IDE, so their design focuses on the only thing they have: source code. Clement remarked that we already have SUnit tests and he suggested that we could just enhance the IDE to present them next to the methods. This might actually be less straightforward with SUnit because it was not made for preserving links to the code, but it can work out of the box with something like GTExamples.
Yes, the language meta-model is already too complex in Pharo IMHO, let's not make it even more complex. I should have precised that's not what I meant if this was not obvious to everyone.
*1. Method docs with examples, so a user can see an example usage of a method (sunit test methods sometimes aren't good "examples")* *2. We already had (and still have) some method docs where the example code just won't work anymore because the methods or classes used*
Nicolai,
I'm suggesting to show the SUnit test code (or example code, or whatever) next to the method, and being able to create a unit test this way instead of only the existing green/red button and the "browse tests" entry in the right click menu. For existing methods having in their comment executable code to test how they work (as you mentioned), the code can just be moved to the test shown in the pane next to it (through a script discovering all cases like that or manually).
The example usage would still be shown next to the code for the user, except it would already be under version control as existing SUnit tests are, it can now have syntax coloring which is not present in comments, it's automatically executed by each Pharo build through SUnit hence detecting regressions and the meta-model is not getting more complex at all. As Tudor said, it's only about IDE changes.
I believe that some SUnit tests are sometimes not good examples because they're higher level tests (application tests, business tests) while as for python doctests it's only relevant to show unit tests next to the method the unit test validates. Currently I believe Nautilus discovers tests and add the green/red button based on name conventions. Foo>>bar has this feature if FooTests>>testBar is implemented. So it's either a matter of improving this heuristic or educating the community with this existing name convention. In any case, I don't think it's more changes for the user than having to learn convention in the comments/pragmas.
Yes, we should d some experiments with different solutions and see what works. I like the simplicity of having code in comments, at the moment I don't like when we use the code highlighter, because this looks a bit confusing. I would like a better link between methods and sunit tests, too. I still don't think that unit tests can fully replace code examples. And having a possibility to validate the code from method comments would be nice. For example, some time ago there were some examples in Color methods like wheel: thisMany "Return a collection of thisMany colors evenly spaced around the color wheel." "Color showColors: (Color wheel: 12)" the method #showColors: was long gone, so I replaced the comment to use #inspect instead. But this code example is not about validation, a unit test would look like self assert:(Color wheel: 12) equals: {(Color r: 0.7000000000000001 g: 0.07 b: 0.07 alpha: 1.0). (Color r: 0.7000000000000001 .....} This code example is about a simple usage: "how would Color wheel:12 look like ? Ha just inspect the result and see yourself" And having a way to detect when the code example "Color showColors: .." doesn't work anymore because the method was removed, or if the Code example "(CompiledMethod compiledMethodAt: #author) author" doesn't work anymore because the method was moved from CompiledMethod to Compiled code ;-) would be nice. Yes maybe we can find another way to link real example code (not code in comments) to the actual method with better tool support, but we can not cover this with unit tests style methods alone. Even a simple example like: 'pharo' capitalized " >>> 'Pharo'" this reads better than self assert:'pharo' capitalized equals:'Pharo' Ok, it is not that bad to understand the usage of 'capitalized', its iput and output from this unit test, but not all unit tests are written like that. Some tests are mostly about testing corner cases or an implementation detail, or other code that isn't even considered to be used outside of the test. So, yes, we should do some more experiments and see.
Cheers, Doru
Stef
Le 16/9/16 à 14:18, Denis Kudriashov a écrit :
2016-09-16 13:42 GMT+02:00 Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com>: Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with
the test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ?
You're saying: Their values is active documentation that can be automatically
validated.
That can also be applied to test we've already had with SUnit. If the only difference you want is to display the test next to the method, then it's an IDE problem, nothing has to be changed but the IDE.
In python they have no other choices than putting tests in comments because their IDE is a text editor, they cannot create other panes or anything like that.
It is of course true. But Stef suggestion is really much much simpler. It is just convention how to write examples inside comments. Then tools could work with them and Nicolai already provide simple extension for Nautilus. We already has a lot of comments with examples inside. Making them discoverable and testable will be nice.
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Yesterday is a fact. Tomorrow is a possibility. Today is a challenge."
+1 I love Sunit as specification validation. I like doctest just a validated doc. I do not care that the are used as tests. This is not the main goal to me The goal is make sure that the reader understand fast. I like that there are in the comments because in a PharoDoc the examples woudl be there. Sytef
> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:37 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote: > > + 1 > > Changing the language metamodel for simple validated comments is a huge effort for nothing. > Clement is good at VM level but not at other level :)
I think there is a misunderstanding :). I do not see any implication to the language meta-model in the remark of Clement.
In fact, I expressed exactly the same opinion, that the design of things like PythonDoc comes from the fact that those people do not rely on an IDE, so their design focuses on the only thing they have: source code. Clement remarked that we already have SUnit tests and he suggested that we could just enhance the IDE to present them next to the methods. This might actually be less straightforward with SUnit because it was not made for preserving links to the code, but it can work out of the box with something like GTExamples.
Yes, the language meta-model is already too complex in Pharo IMHO, let's not make it even more complex. I should have precised that's not what I meant if this was not obvious to everyone.
/1. Method docs with examples, so a user can see an example usage of a method (sunit test methods sometimes aren't good "examples")/ /2. We already had (and still have) some method docs where the example code just won't work anymore because the methods or classes used/
Nicolai,
I'm suggesting to show the SUnit test code (or example code, or whatever) next to the method, and being able to create a unit test this way instead of only the existing green/red button and the "browse tests" entry in the right click menu. For existing methods having in their comment executable code to test how they work (as you mentioned), the code can just be moved to the test shown in the pane next to it (through a script discovering all cases like that or manually).
The example usage would still be shown next to the code for the user, except it would already be under version control as existing SUnit tests are, it can now have syntax coloring which is not present in comments, it's automatically executed by each Pharo build through SUnit hence detecting regressions and the meta-model is not getting more complex at all. As Tudor said, it's only about IDE changes.
I believe that some SUnit tests are sometimes not good examples because they're higher level tests (application tests, business tests) while as for python doctests it's only relevant to show unit tests next to the method the unit test validates. Currently I believe Nautilus discovers tests and add the green/red button based on name conventions. Foo>>bar has this feature if FooTests>>testBar is implemented. So it's either a matter of improving this heuristic or educating the community with this existing name convention. In any case, I don't think it's more changes for the user than having to learn convention in the comments/pragmas.
Yes, we should d some experiments with different solutions and see what works.
I like the simplicity of having code in comments, at the moment I don't like when we use the code highlighter, because this looks a bit confusing.
I would like a better link between methods and sunit tests, too.
I still don't think that unit tests can fully replace code examples. And having a possibility to validate the code from method comments would be nice.
For example, some time ago there were some examples in Color methods like wheel: thisMany "Return a collection of thisMany colors evenly spaced around the color wheel." "Color showColors: (Color wheel: 12)"
the method #showColors: was long gone, so I replaced the comment to use #inspect instead.
But this code example is not about validation, a unit test would look like
self assert:(Color wheel: 12) equals: {(Color r: 0.7000000000000001 g: 0.07 b: 0.07 alpha: 1.0). (Color r: 0.7000000000000001 .....}
This code example is about a simple usage: "how would Color wheel:12 look like ? Ha just inspect the result and see yourself"
And having a way to detect when the code example "Color showColors: .." doesn't work anymore because the method was removed, or if the Code example "(CompiledMethod compiledMethodAt: #author) author" doesn't work anymore because the method was moved from CompiledMethod to Compiled code ;-) would be nice.
Yes maybe we can find another way to link real example code (not code in comments) to the actual method with better tool support, but we can not cover this with unit tests style methods alone.
Even a simple example like: 'pharo' capitalized " >>> 'Pharo'" this reads better than self assert:'pharo' capitalized equals:'Pharo' Ok, it is not that bad to understand the usage of 'capitalized', its iput and output from this unit test, but not all unit tests are written like that. Some tests are mostly about testing corner cases or an implementation detail, or other code that isn't even considered to be used outside of the test.
So, yes, we should do some more experiments and see.
Cheers, Doru
> Stef > > Le 16/9/16 à 14:18, Denis Kudriashov a écrit : >> >> 2016-09-16 13:42 GMT+02:00 Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com <mailto:bera.clement@gmail.com>>: >> Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with the test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ? >> >> You're saying: >> Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated. >> That can also be applied to test we've already had with SUnit. If the only difference you want is to display the test next to the method, then it's an IDE problem, nothing has to be changed but the IDE. >> >> In python they have no other choices than putting tests in comments because their IDE is a text editor, they cannot create other panes or anything like that. >> >> It is of course true. But Stef suggestion is really much much simpler. It is just convention how to write examples inside comments. Then tools could work with them and Nicolai already provide simple extension for Nautilus. >> We already has a lot of comments with examples inside. Making them discoverable and testable will be nice. >> >
-- www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com> www.feenk.com <http://www.feenk.com>
"Yesterday is a fact. Tomorrow is a possibility. Today is a challenge."
2016-09-16 13:42 GMT+02:00 Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com>:
Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with the test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ?
You're saying: *Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated.* That can also be applied to test we've already had with SUnit. If the only difference you want is to display the test next to the method, then it's an IDE problem, nothing has to be changed but the IDE.
This is what I thought first, we already have the association between methods and tests, Nautilus can detect if there is a corresponding test , for example browse Fraction>>truncated, it will show a test icon, that will run the test FractionTest>>#testTruncated. This works already good, and I think we don't need special comments or pragmas for this. But what stef wants is 1. Method docs with examples, so a user can see an example usage of a method (sunit test methods sometimes aren't good "examples") 2. We already had (and still have) some method docs where the example code just won't work anymore because the methods or classes used by the example were removed, renamed. So, it would be good if we can extract these examples and run them automatically to make sure they are still working. But yes, maybe we can still solve this with better Tools, not working only on the plain text in comments.
In python they have no other choices than putting tests in comments because their IDE is a text editor, they cannot create other panes or anything like that.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:21 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi,
I was thinking on the metro way to work, and I also saw that this discussion is actually split in multiple threads, so it was not easy to follow :).
Some of my feelings about this:
- Pragmas are nice because they are easy to "interpret". Parsing them is already provided. However, putting expressions or long examples into them starts to be awkward. It seems it's pushin the syntax too much, isn't it?
- Comments are nice because they are ignored! But right now comments are simple plain text. This thread is to convert *some* comments into executable examples. But this should be just some comments and not all of them, am I right? So what happens when we want to have comments written in Pillar for example? What I mean is that having examples is just an example of something we would like to do with comments.
But we can also imagine having comment interpreters. Something like this:
">>>PillarDoc !This is a Pillar title And I'm just a paragraph And I can link a class like @Object. "
">>>ExampleDoc self assert: '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename equals: 'gloops.taz' "
We could have for class comment
">>>UMLDescription UMLClass named: 'Visitor'
Arrow from:
But this can start to be complex "
What I like from this is that: - comments that do not specify an interpreter are just plain old text. Thus backward compatible. - comments that specify an interpreter that is not present, are just plain old text. A decoupling as it happens with the settings. - an ExampleDoc interpreter can be just a test case instance, thus we could use assertions instead of special >>> messages.
I do not know because all the comments should be pillar compatible. If you do not use pillar commands you just get plain text. You see we can easily detect comment too: if a text contains >>> then it is a doc
Then ExampleDoc is an extra syntax.
I'm not found with the self assert: because it feels like something coming out of nowhere. We will have to explain: yes self is bound to an instance of the testCase... and to me this is implementation details: if I give expr1 and expr2 the implementation can build self assert: expr1 equals: expr2
I liked the simplicity of nicolai' solution I would just have a comment and a message >>> so that we => nearly no syntax change => something really lightweight and optional
What I care is that
- we get simple examples right in the method - one line no more. - that these examples are correct and always validated (I do not see them as tests), their values is more in the correct documentation than the tests. They are basic output. I do not want to have full code in the method, in that case this should go one class side example or plain tests.
Things that would require more thought: - there is an overlap between these interpreted comments and pragmas... There are for sure cases that solutions can be imagined with both.
I do not think that expressions can fit inside pragmas
- there is an overlap between examples and test cases. I saw many people that argued that already. I am not against examples, but I think we should (whichever implementation is chosen) draw a line and set some guidelines.
To me I do not care that they are tests. Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated. I do not expect to run them but the system can garantee that they are correct.
Stef, probably you have already in mind when you want a test case and when an example and what's the distance. It would be good if we can transform that implicit thought in something explicit (maybe even a lint rule in the future?)
I do not get what you mean here.
For me a test is a scenario. If I do that and that then this happens a test can use a class example
Now for me a test should not rely one a online part of method comment.
These onliners are just make the method comments better.
Guille
-------- Original Message --------
Hi nicolai
I was thinking that I would prefer to have
"` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.`"
instead of ` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.` <- suceeds, no output
So that we can use ` in the future in plain code. Also it has the advantage that it is backward compatible.
Else we could have
`` But I do not know.
Tell me what you think.
I would love to browse the complete system to convert existing one liner with such
Stef
Ok, this is a quick hack ( do not look at the code :), yes using regex here is a bit fragil)
You can add code in comments between backticks (`) The formatter will highlight the text like smalltalk code (or not if it is not valid code). + an icon styler with an icon showing a warning icon for faulty code or an information icon otherwise you can click on the icon,
if the code is an association
expression -> result
it executes the expression and compares it with the result, (with assert:equals: ) opens debugger if it fails and does nothing otherwise
if the code is just an expression, it opens an inspector.
This is just one way to do some tests and experiments with this idea, don 't yet know if this is a good idea or if we can / should find a better way to connect code with examples.
first result, I find expressions in comments, highlighted as code, confusing :)
(file in attached cs in a recent pharo 6.0 and look at the method AbstractFileReference>>#baseName . Or add an expression with backticks in a method comment ` your code here `
Stef
2016-09-16 14:25 GMT+02:00 Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com>:
2016-09-16 13:42 GMT+02:00 Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com>:
Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with the test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ?
You're saying: *Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated.* That can also be applied to test we've already had with SUnit. If the only difference you want is to display the test next to the method, then it's an IDE problem, nothing has to be changed but the IDE.
This is what I thought first, we already have the association between methods and tests, Nautilus can detect if there is a corresponding test , for example browse Fraction>>truncated, it will show a test icon, that will run the test FractionTest>>#testTruncated. This works already good, and I think we don't need special comments or pragmas for this.
But what stef wants is 1. Method docs with examples, so a user can see an example usage of a method (sunit test methods sometimes aren't good "examples")
I'd prefer to have a Pillar doc for my class / package / project with live code portions, with a link method to chapter. We use examples inside comments because we don't have anything better...
2. We already had (and still have) some method docs where the example code just won't work anymore because the methods or classes used by the example were removed, renamed. So, it would be good if we can extract these examples and run them automatically to make sure they are still working.
This one is independant of the syntax. If they are in, say, the Pillar description of the class, of course they can be tested and run everytime we save a new version of the package ? Or as a test case? What about examples that create views, windows and external files? How do we test they are still valid without making those a sunit test with a teardown?
But yes, maybe we can still solve this with better Tools, not working only on the plain text in comments.
Exactly. Moreover given what we're focusing on with GT. Thierry
This is what I thought first, we already have the association between methods and tests, Nautilus can detect if there is a corresponding test , for example browse Fraction>>truncated, it will show a test icon, that will run the test FractionTest>>#testTruncated. This works already good, and I think we don't need special comments or pragmas for this.
But what stef wants is 1. Method docs with examples, so a user can see an example usage of a method (sunit test methods sometimes aren't good "examples") 2. We already had (and still have) some method docs where the example code just won't work anymore because the methods or classes used by the example were removed, renamed. So, it would be good if we can extract these examples and run them automatically to make sure they are still working.
But yes, maybe we can still solve this with better Tools, not working only on the plain text in comments.
This can be done in addition but first we should be able to encode them.
On 16 September 2016 at 13:42, Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com> wrote:
Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with the test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ?
Exactly, we already have that with class comments, so why not methods (and while we're at it, package comments too) A separate method comment would make it clear that it's intended as API documentation for users of the method (and then the comment inside the method's source can be really a development comment). Another advantage is that its syntax won't have to deal with being between quotes and all the indentation/escapement hassles that come with inserting a syntax inside another one⦠-- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
2016-09-16 15:26 GMT+02:00 Damien Pollet <damien.pollet@gmail.com>:
On 16 September 2016 at 13:42, Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com> wrote:
Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with the test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ?
Exactly, we already have that with class comments, so why not methods (and while we're at it, package comments too)
Could we have a Pillar-way of organizing comments so that, based on sections, one could automatically find, from a book-like comment of the package or the class, which section applies to a given method?
A separate method comment would make it clear that it's intended as API documentation for users of the method (and then the comment inside the method's source can be really a development comment). Another advantage is that its syntax won't have to deal with being between quotes and all the indentation/escapement hassles that come with inserting a syntax inside another oneâ¦
Good point. Thierry
-- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
On 16 September 2016 at 15:35, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
Could we have a Pillar-way of organizing comments so that, based on sections, one could automatically find, from a book-like comment of the package or the class, which section applies to a given method?
I guess it's like any cross-referencing or indexing system⦠I'm guessing a purely automatic system would find irrelevant matches and miss related stuff, so it would need some human-added hints. But no one can reasonably go through the cross-product of docs and code, adding hints, so that would need to be crowdsourced and aggregated, a bit like the QA critiques. I'll leave this link to the Django docs: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.10/ I recently watched a talk from I think the Django lead who was explaining the different kinds of docs (tutorials, howtos, topic guides, and reference). Package/class/method comments would be reference doc, but would need to cross-ref with any other docs too⦠-- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
Another example: https://docs.racket-lang.org/scribble/index.html First example: https://docs.racket-lang.org/scribble/getting-started.html#%28part._first-ex... On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Damien Pollet <damien.pollet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16 September 2016 at 15:35, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
Could we have a Pillar-way of organizing comments so that, based on sections, one could automatically find, from a book-like comment of the package or the class, which section applies to a given method?
I guess it's like any cross-referencing or indexing system⦠I'm guessing a purely automatic system would find irrelevant matches and miss related stuff, so it would need some human-added hints. But no one can reasonably go through the cross-product of docs and code, adding hints, so that would need to be crowdsourced and aggregated, a bit like the QA critiques.
I'll leave this link to the Django docs: https://docs. djangoproject.com/en/1.10/ I recently watched a talk from I think the Django lead who was explaining the different kinds of docs (tutorials, howtos, topic guides, and reference). Package/class/method comments would be reference doc, but would need to cross-ref with any other docs tooâ¦
-- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
-- Bernardo E.C. Sent from a cheap desktop computer in South America.
2016-09-16 15:51 GMT+02:00 Damien Pollet <damien.pollet@gmail.com>:
On 16 September 2016 at 15:35, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
Could we have a Pillar-way of organizing comments so that, based on sections, one could automatically find, from a book-like comment of the package or the class, which section applies to a given method?
I guess it's like any cross-referencing or indexing system⦠I'm guessing a purely automatic system would find irrelevant matches and miss related stuff, so it would need some human-added hints. But no one can reasonably go through the cross-product of docs and code, adding hints, so that would need to be crowdsourced and aggregated, a bit like the QA critiques.
If one could, in a Pillar doc of a package, unify the packa
I'll leave this link to the Django docs: https://docs. djangoproject.com/en/1.10/ I recently watched a talk from I think the Django lead who was explaining the different kinds of docs (tutorials, howtos, topic guides, and reference). Package/class/method comments would be reference doc, but would need to cross-ref with any other docs tooâ¦
-- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
Sorry for the mistake, 2016-09-16 15:51 GMT+02:00 Damien Pollet <damien.pollet@gmail.com>:
On 16 September 2016 at 15:35, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
Could we have a Pillar-way of organizing comments so that, based on sections, one could automatically find, from a book-like comment of the package or the class, which section applies to a given method?
I guess it's like any cross-referencing or indexing system⦠I'm guessing a purely automatic system would find irrelevant matches and miss related stuff, so it would need some human-added hints. But no one can reasonably go through the cross-product of docs and code, adding hints, so that would need to be crowdsourced and aggregated, a bit like the QA critiques.
If one could reference the package code (class / method) as a reference inside the Pillar comment, would that work? I'm a bit wary of an 'automatic' approach, but I'd find great to go in a fluid way from text to code and back. For those who remember, my idea would be like referencing chapters and sections of the LaTeX generation of smalltalk source code... If you reference {\ref aClass:aProtocol:aMethod} then you get a live two-way link between the comment and the code in the browser.
I'll leave this link to the Django docs: https://docs. djangoproject.com/en/1.10/ I recently watched a talk from I think the Django lead who was explaining the different kinds of docs (tutorials, howtos, topic guides, and reference). Package/class/method comments would be reference doc, but would need to cross-ref with any other docs tooâ¦
I'd make it simple: start with a book-like document cross-referenced with the live code, as the preferred documentation for a package. Thierry
-- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
Le 16/9/16 à 15:26, Damien Pollet a écrit :
On 16 September 2016 at 13:42, Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com <mailto:bera.clement@gmail.com>> wrote:
Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with the test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ?
Exactly, we already have that with class comments, so why not methods (and while we're at it, package comments too)
I love you guys. Let us change MCZ binary storage, pharo language metamodel and more while we are at it. Not talking about merging and others. Sorry there is a huge tradeoffs with simplicity and gain. And you are just jumping into building a monster for ONE LINERS.... Repeat after me ONE LINERS. I prefer to keep my energy for worth large enhancements and grab low hanging fruits when I see them. And Nicolai showed it to us. We cn get some variation and get all the easy benefits. Daemons of over-engineering are tempting us because this is cooler to to design something complex. But KISS to the rescue. Stef
A separate method comment would make it clear that it's intended as API documentation for users of the method (and then the comment inside the method's source can be really a development comment). Another advantage is that its syntax won't have to deal with being between quotes and all the indentation/escapement hassles that come with inserting a syntax inside another oneâ¦
-- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
On 16 September 2016 at 20:42, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Daemons of over-engineering are tempting us because this is cooler to to design something complex.
Dreaming of crazy features is a good thing. Talking from experience, I prefer that to not dreaming, which is pretty dull. And over-engineering is of course the wrong path. But the temptation to do so is revealing of where the system is too complex. -- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
Le 16/9/16 à 21:58, Damien Pollet a écrit :
On 16 September 2016 at 20:42, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
Daemons of over-engineering are tempting us because this is cooler to to design something complex.
Dreaming of crazy features is a good thing. Talking from experience, I prefer that to not dreaming, which is pretty dull.
Yes now create a thread: the dreams for a cool documentation system in Pharo and I will follow and add to it happily, What I was asking in this thread is how can we catch a low hanging fruit and get an immmediate impact because it looks so easy to do. Stef
And over-engineering is of course the wrong path. But the temptation to do so is revealing of where the system is too complex.
-- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet
Le 16/9/16 à 13:42, Clément Bera a écrit :
Why don't you just change nautilus to have two text areas, one with the test corresponding to the method and the other one with the method's code ?
You're saying: /Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated./ That can also be applied to test we've already had with SUnit. If the only difference you want is to display the test next to the method, then it's an IDE problem, nothing has to be changed but the IDE.
and you want to create different semantic objects... well you underestimate the amount of work. Ask pavel just to get a semantically model for Pharo just plain pharo with Slot and Traits. Stef
In python they have no other choices than putting tests in comments because their IDE is a text editor, they cannot create other panes or anything like that.
Clement how do you save/store/merge.... in a method it is cheap and working.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:21 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
Hi,
I was thinking on the metro way to work, and I also saw that this discussion is actually split in multiple threads, so it was not easy to follow :).
Some of my feelings about this:
- Pragmas are nice because they are easy to "interpret". Parsing them is already provided. However, putting expressions or long examples into them starts to be awkward. It seems it's pushin the syntax too much, isn't it?
- Comments are nice because they are ignored! But right now comments are simple plain text. This thread is to convert *some* comments into executable examples. But this should be just some comments and not all of them, am I right? So what happens when we want to have comments written in Pillar for example? What I mean is that having examples is just an example of something we would like to do with comments.
But we can also imagine having comment interpreters. Something like this:
">>>PillarDoc !This is a Pillar title And I'm just a paragraph And I can link a class like @Object. "
">>>ExampleDoc self assert: '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename equals: 'gloops.taz' "
We could have for class comment
">>>UMLDescription UMLClass named: 'Visitor'
Arrow from:
But this can start to be complex "
What I like from this is that: - comments that do not specify an interpreter are just plain old text. Thus backward compatible. - comments that specify an interpreter that is not present, are just plain old text. A decoupling as it happens with the settings. - an ExampleDoc interpreter can be just a test case instance, thus we could use assertions instead of special >>> messages.
I do not know because all the comments should be pillar compatible. If you do not use pillar commands you just get plain text. You see we can easily detect comment too: if a text contains >>> then it is a doc
Then ExampleDoc is an extra syntax.
I'm not found with the self assert: because it feels like something coming out of nowhere. We will have to explain: yes self is bound to an instance of the testCase... and to me this is implementation details: if I give expr1 and expr2 the implementation can build self assert: expr1 equals: expr2
I liked the simplicity of nicolai' solution I would just have a comment and a message >>> so that we => nearly no syntax change => something really lightweight and optional
What I care is that
- we get simple examples right in the method - one line no more. - that these examples are correct and always validated (I do not see them as tests), their values is more in the correct documentation than the tests. They are basic output. I do not want to have full code in the method, in that case this should go one class side example or plain tests.
Things that would require more thought: - there is an overlap between these interpreted comments and pragmas... There are for sure cases that solutions can be imagined with both.
I do not think that expressions can fit inside pragmas
- there is an overlap between examples and test cases. I saw many people that argued that already. I am not against examples, but I think we should (whichever implementation is chosen) draw a line and set some guidelines.
To me I do not care that they are tests. Their values is active documentation that can be automatically validated. I do not expect to run them but the system can garantee that they are correct.
Stef, probably you have already in mind when you want a test case and when an example and what's the distance. It would be good if we can transform that implicit thought in something explicit (maybe even a lint rule in the future?)
I do not get what you mean here.
For me a test is a scenario. If I do that and that then this happens a test can use a class example
Now for me a test should not rely one a online part of method comment.
These onliners are just make the method comments better.
Guille
-------- Original Message --------
Hi nicolai
I was thinking that I would prefer to have
"` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.`"
instead of ` '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename -> 'gloops.taz'.` <- suceeds, no output
So that we can use ` in the future in plain code. Also it has the advantage that it is backward compatible.
Else we could have
`` But I do not know.
Tell me what you think.
I would love to browse the complete system to convert existing one liner with such
Stef
Ok, this is a quick hack ( do not look at the code :), yes using regex here is a bit fragil)
You can add code in comments between backticks (`) The formatter will highlight the text like smalltalk code (or not if it is not valid code). + an icon styler with an icon showing a warning icon for faulty code or an information icon otherwise you can click on the icon,
if the code is an association
expression -> result
it executes the expression and compares it with the result, (with assert:equals: ) opens debugger if it fails and does nothing otherwise
if the code is just an expression, it opens an inspector.
This is just one way to do some tests and experiments with this idea, don 't yet know if this is a good idea or if we can / should find a better way to connect code with examples.
first result, I find expressions in comments, highlighted as code, confusing :)
(file in attached cs in a recent pharo 6.0 and look at the method AbstractFileReference>>#baseName . Or add an expression with backticks in a method comment ` your code here `
Stef
I'd be more interested with a package level doc than a class doc or test. Package level doc is quite useful to outline how some things are working together, something which is quite hard to figure out except by reading external doc or inferring things by walking through the code or a running test. Having the ability to read about a package would be very useful. Basically, this is what Java provides. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/solaris/javadoc.html#pa... Phil On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:45 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi all
I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html
I'm talking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'"
Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library.
I was thinking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
Do you have any idea?
I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented. We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.
I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works!
Object >>> aResultingObject "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated test. We can check that it is true."
" '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename
'gloops.taz' "
^ self = aResultingObject
Stef
Le 16/9/16 à 00:19, phil@highoctane.be a écrit :
I'd be more interested with a package level doc than a class doc or test. It is at another level and it will come. The manisfest is here and we should update Nautilus to show other information.
Now I'm curious to see how many people will use that when I see the level of description in configuration of.
Package level doc is quite useful to outline how some things are working together, something which is quite hard to figure out except by reading external doc or inferring things by walking through the code or a running test.
I'm the guy that propose SmallUML to embed description of UML diagram as package level 5 years ago and before that I tried to add png of diagram so I'm convinced about that.
Having the ability to read about a package would be very useful. Basically, this is what Java provides.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/solaris/javadoc.html#pa...
Phil
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:45 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
Hi all
I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html <https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html>
I'm talking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'"
Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library.
I was thinking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
Do you have any idea?
I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented. We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.
I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works!
Object >>> aResultingObject "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated test. We can check that it is true."
" '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
^ self = aResultingObject
Stef
2016-09-16 0:19 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>:
I'd be more interested with a package level doc than a class doc or test.
Package level doc is quite useful to outline how some things are working together, something which is quite hard to figure out except by reading external doc or inferring things by walking through the code or a running test.
Why don't we have yet package comments ? I see there is some support for it in PackageManifest, I remember there was some work (people working) on support for Nautilus, no? maybe something like this, (see attached file) Nautilus comment pane on class selection -> show class comment no class selection -> show package comment (class side #description of package manifest of this package) you can even add or change the (package) comment, it will compile a proper #description method on the manifest class)
Having the ability to read about a package would be very useful. Basically, this is what Java provides.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/solaris/javadoc.html# packagecomment
Phil
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:45 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi all
I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html
I'm talking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'"
Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library.
I was thinking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
Do you have any idea?
I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented. We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.
I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works!
Object >>> aResultingObject "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated test. We can check that it is true."
" '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename
'gloops.taz' "
^ self = aResultingObject
Stef
Package level doc is quite useful to outline how some things are working together, something which is quite hard to figure out except by reading external doc or inferring things by walking through the code or a running test.
Why don't we have yet package comments ?
Just because we are too busy.
I see there is some support for it in PackageManifest, I remember there was some work (people working) on support for Nautilus, no? Christophe is working on the manifest to support cargo metadata.
maybe something like this, (see attached file) Nautilus comment pane on class selection -> show class comment no class selection -> show package comment (class side #description of package manifest of this package) you can even add or change the (package) comment, it will compile a proper #description method on the manifest class)
Yes this is one idea. I would love to have package comment.
Having the ability to read about a package would be very useful. Basically, this is what Java provides.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/solaris/javadoc.html#pa... <http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/solaris/javadoc.html#pa...>
Phil
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:45 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr <mailto:stepharo@free.fr>> wrote:
Hi all
I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html <https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html>
I'm talking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'"
Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library.
I was thinking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
Do you have any idea?
I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented. We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.
I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works!
Object >>> aResultingObject "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated test. We can check that it is true."
" '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
^ self = aResultingObject
Stef
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> Date: 2016-09-16 17:01 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Call for design for a literal programming doc similar to PythonDocTest To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> 2016-09-16 0:19 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>:
I'd be more interested with a package level doc than a class doc or test.
Package level doc is quite useful to outline how some things are working together, something which is quite hard to figure out except by reading external doc or inferring things by walking through the code or a running test.
Why don't we have yet package comments ? I see there is some support for it in PackageManifest, I remember there was some work (people working) on support for Nautilus, no? maybe something like this, (see attached file) Nautilus comment pane on class selection -> show class comment no class selection -> show package comment (class side #description of package manifest of this package) you can even add or change the (package) comment, it will compile a proper #description method on the manifest class) Anyone looked at this ? Is this what we can use for supporting and editing package comments? I am not sure if the use of package manifests is how we wanted to implement package comments. Any other ideas? I can open a fogbugzs issue and refine this implementation a little bit.
Having the ability to read about a package would be very useful. Basically, this is what Java provides.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/solaris /javadoc.html#packagecomment
Phil
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:45 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi all
I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html
I'm talking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'"
Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library.
I was thinking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
Do you have any idea?
I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented. We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.
I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works!
Object >>> aResultingObject "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated test. We can check that it is true."
" '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename
'gloops.taz' "
^ self = aResultingObject
Stef
Whatever would be better than what we have now. I like what you propose, makes sense and doesn't loads the UI with more stuff. I am willing to test your implementation for sure. Phil On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> Date: 2016-09-16 17:01 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Call for design for a literal programming doc similar to PythonDocTest To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>
2016-09-16 0:19 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>:
I'd be more interested with a package level doc than a class doc or test.
Package level doc is quite useful to outline how some things are working together, something which is quite hard to figure out except by reading external doc or inferring things by walking through the code or a running test.
Why don't we have yet package comments ? I see there is some support for it in PackageManifest, I remember there was some work (people working) on support for Nautilus, no?
maybe something like this, (see attached file) Nautilus comment pane on class selection -> show class comment no class selection -> show package comment (class side #description of package manifest of this package) you can even add or change the (package) comment, it will compile a proper #description method on the manifest class)
Anyone looked at this ? Is this what we can use for supporting and editing package comments? I am not sure if the use of package manifests is how we wanted to implement package comments. Any other ideas?
I can open a fogbugzs issue and refine this implementation a little bit.
Having the ability to read about a package would be very useful. Basically, this is what Java provides.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/solaris /javadoc.html#packagecomment
Phil
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:45 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi all
I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html
I'm talking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'"
Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library.
I was thinking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
Do you have any idea?
I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented. We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.
I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works!
Object >>> aResultingObject "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated test. We can check that it is true."
" '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename
'gloops.taz' "
^ self = aResultingObject
Stef
2016-10-10 21:29 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>:
Whatever would be better than what we have now. I like what you propose, makes sense and doesn't loads the UI with more stuff.
I am willing to test your implementation for sure.
it is in now (Pharo 60267). If anything is missing, not working or whatever, please report back. (Packages without package manifest class show just nothing, but you can add a new package comment (package manifest class will be created). If a package manifest class exists, but without a #description you text appears in the comment pane ("No package comment in this manifest .... please add a comment").
Phil
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> Date: 2016-09-16 17:01 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Call for design for a literal programming doc similar to PythonDocTest To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>
2016-09-16 0:19 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>:
I'd be more interested with a package level doc than a class doc or test.
Package level doc is quite useful to outline how some things are working together, something which is quite hard to figure out except by reading external doc or inferring things by walking through the code or a running test.
Why don't we have yet package comments ? I see there is some support for it in PackageManifest, I remember there was some work (people working) on support for Nautilus, no?
maybe something like this, (see attached file) Nautilus comment pane on class selection -> show class comment no class selection -> show package comment (class side #description of package manifest of this package) you can even add or change the (package) comment, it will compile a proper #description method on the manifest class)
Anyone looked at this ? Is this what we can use for supporting and editing package comments? I am not sure if the use of package manifests is how we wanted to implement package comments. Any other ideas?
I can open a fogbugzs issue and refine this implementation a little bit.
Having the ability to read about a package would be very useful. Basically, this is what Java provides.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/solaris /javadoc.html#packagecomment
Phil
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:45 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi all
I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html
I'm talking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'"
Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library.
I was thinking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
Do you have any idea?
I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented. We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.
I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works!
Object >>> aResultingObject "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated test. We can check that it is true."
" '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename
'gloops.taz' "
^ self = aResultingObject
Stef
Nice, seems to work. Now, I tried to click on a package tag and add a comment at that level. For sure it erased the previous one. We may not allow people to edit package level comment when on a package tag. Also manifest >>description is like description ^ 'some desc' Would be nicer like description ^ 'some desc' Just sayin' b/c this is what the formatter does when asked. Phil Phil On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
2016-10-10 21:29 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>:
Whatever would be better than what we have now. I like what you propose, makes sense and doesn't loads the UI with more stuff.
I am willing to test your implementation for sure.
it is in now (Pharo 60267). If anything is missing, not working or whatever, please report back. (Packages without package manifest class show just nothing, but you can add a new package comment (package manifest class will be created). If a package manifest class exists, but without a #description you text appears in the comment pane ("No package comment in this manifest .... please add a comment").
Phil
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> Date: 2016-09-16 17:01 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Call for design for a literal programming doc similar to PythonDocTest To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>
2016-09-16 0:19 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>:
I'd be more interested with a package level doc than a class doc or test.
Package level doc is quite useful to outline how some things are working together, something which is quite hard to figure out except by reading external doc or inferring things by walking through the code or a running test.
Why don't we have yet package comments ? I see there is some support for it in PackageManifest, I remember there was some work (people working) on support for Nautilus, no?
maybe something like this, (see attached file) Nautilus comment pane on class selection -> show class comment no class selection -> show package comment (class side #description of package manifest of this package) you can even add or change the (package) comment, it will compile a proper #description method on the manifest class)
Anyone looked at this ? Is this what we can use for supporting and editing package comments? I am not sure if the use of package manifests is how we wanted to implement package comments. Any other ideas?
I can open a fogbugzs issue and refine this implementation a little bit.
Having the ability to read about a package would be very useful. Basically, this is what Java provides.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/solaris /javadoc.html#packagecomment
Phil
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:45 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi all
I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html
I'm talking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'"
Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library.
I was thinking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
Do you have any idea?
I cannot not do anything and just complain that our methods are not that well documented. We as a community should take this and build an super cool system.
I tried and defined >>> on Object to see if it works!
Object >>> aResultingObject "If the method comment contains >>> then it is a pharo documentated test. We can check that it is true."
" '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename
'gloops.taz' "
^ self = aResultingObject
Stef
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:45 AM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi all
I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html
I'm talking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'"
Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library.
I was thinking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
Do you have any idea?
basename "Returns the base of the basename" """ '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename ==> 'gloops.taz' """ self size == 0 "the root node" ifTrue: [ ^ '/']. ^ self at: self size I like this idea. But a fine semantic.... We should think of these less as "tests" and more as "howto" snippets that are tested for correctness. They should show just the *simplest* was to get an object to which the method can be sent. Maybe they could be also displayed via the gtExample interface ?? cheers -ben
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:45 AM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi all
I want something similar in the spirit to PythonDocTest https://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html
I'm talking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename, i.e. /foo/gloops.taz basename is 'gloops.taz' / basename is '/'"
Pragmas do not work well i.e., basename "Returns the base of the basename" <expr: '''/foo/gloops.taz'' asFileReference basename' result: 'gloops.taz'>
We should invent a syntax to be put inside comments and that we can easily parse because we need to improve the use and discovery of the library.
I was thinking about
basename "Returns the base of the basename" " '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename >>> 'gloops.taz' "
Do you have any idea? basename "Returns the base of the basename" """ '/foo/gloops.taz' asFileReference basename ==> 'gloops.taz' """ self size == 0 "the root node" ifTrue: [ ^ '/']. ^ self at: self size
I like this idea. But a fine semantic.... We should think of these less as "tests" and more as "howto" snippets that are tested for correctness.
They should show just the *simplest* was to get an object to which the method can be sent. Maybe they could be also displayed via the gtExample interface ??
May be. Right now I want to make sure that all the little examples that are written for example inside methods are correct. Stef
cheers -ben
participants (14)
-
Ben Coman -
Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras -
Clément Bera -
Damien Pollet -
Denis Kudriashov -
Esteban A. Maringolo -
Esteban Lorenzano -
Guille Polito -
Nicolai Hess -
phil＠highoctane.be -
Serge Stinckwich -
stepharo -
Thierry Goubier -
Tudor Girba