April 2014 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

glorp

by Pablo R. Digonzelli

Hi all, can someone tell me if glorp is active there ar is using glorp or other persistence framework in production projects? Tia Ing. Pablo Digonzelli Software Solutions IP-Solutiones SRL Metrotec SRL 25 de Mayo 521 Email: pdigonzelli(a)softsargentina.com pdigonzelli(a)gmail.com Cel: 5493815982714

April 24, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] BabyMock 2

by Attila Magyar

Christophe Demarey wrote > ... but sometimes, even in a well-designed class, you may need to test a > very small part of this class, and in this case, you need a real object > with some mocked methods. I assume that there is a method need to be tested, but it calls towards an other either public or private method of the same object. And you'd like to mock that second method. Am I understanding correctly? Why can't just allow the first method to call the second one? Is it slow, complicated to setup or requires some external resource to execute? Does it help to extract the logic from the second method to an other object? Without a concrete example, I'm just speculating. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/ANN-BabyMock-2-tp4748530p4756105.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 23, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] We need *you* for the upcoming Pharo's website

by kilon alios

Well I tried, several times , but I am not happy with the end result. In any case I am finished with this and since I promised to upload it here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5ivaEATLQ<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol5ivaEATLQ&feature=youtu.be> Sorry I cannot deliver something of better quality but thats the best I can do. If you don't like it, I wont blame you :D On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:40 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > I am still on vacations and the internet is very slow here. I will be > > able to upload something by the end of this weekend. My idea is to > > illustrate 6 points in 6-10 minutes that to my opinion make Pharo a > > very useful and fun choice. > > > please do. Even if you are late, we will evaluate your screencast and > maybe replace one that is already there. Or put it in a dedicated > section somewhere else. We desperately need good screencasts. > > Thanks for the offer > > -- > Damien Cassou > http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st > > "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without > losing enthusiasm." > Winston Churchill > >

April 23, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] [OT] TDD is dead. Long live testing. (DHH)

by Esteban A. Maringolo

TDD is great if you don't know the domain you're modeling, or if it isn't completely specified. Because you end up having the required functionality completely tested. On the other hand, if you are an expert in the domain, you'll implement features that are beyond the required (initial) specs, so you'll code ahead of the specs, and doing everything TDD will be a burden. Regards! Esteban A. Maringolo 2014-04-23 15:11 GMT-03:00 kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: > TDD does not convince me much either, I see it as a convenience but I am not > so sure it really worths its time. > Maybe because there too few coders out there that would make changes that > will massively affect the system, or they wont do some form of testing > anyway. > > I can see the benefit of TDD when you code apps or libs with objects that > are highly dependent on each other and you want to make sure you dont brake > anything, but I doubt thats a common case. > > And not even Pharo has convinced me to use tests, though that is the common > practice. > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> TDD is not about testing, it's about development. >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Dennis Schetinin >> >> >> >> 2014-04-23 19:35 GMT+04:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: >> >>> More or less what I think: testing is necessary and should be pragmatic & >>> fun, not a dogma >>> >>> >>> http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/2014/tdd-is-dead-long-live-testing.html >>> >>> >> >

April 23, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] [OT] TDD is dead. Long live testing. (DHH)

by kilon alios

TDD does not convince me much either, I see it as a convenience but I am not so sure it really worths its time. Maybe because there too few coders out there that would make changes that will massively affect the system, or they wont do some form of testing anyway. I can see the benefit of TDD when you code apps or libs with objects that are highly dependent on each other and you want to make sure you dont brake anything, but I doubt thats a common case. And not even Pharo has convinced me to use tests, though that is the common practice. On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com> wrote: > TDD is not about testing, it's about development. > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > Dennis Schetinin > > > 2014-04-23 19:35 GMT+04:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: > > More or less what I think: testing is necessary and should be pragmatic & >> fun, not a dogma >> >> http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/2014/tdd-is-dead-long-live-testing.html >> >> >> >

April 23, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] [OT] TDD is dead. Long live testing. (DHH)

by Dennis Schetinin

TDD is not about testing, it's about development. -- Best regards, Dennis Schetinin 2014-04-23 19:35 GMT+04:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: > More or less what I think: testing is necessary and should be pragmatic & > fun, not a dogma > > http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/2014/tdd-is-dead-long-live-testing.html > > >

April 23, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Modal widget

by Hilaire Fernandes

Hello Esteban, I am not sure it matches the situation. Did you see my screen shot with the modal morph embedded in a parent morph? All but the modal morph should be locked but perfectly visible. Hilaire Le 23/04/2014 10:51, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > look at the implementation of #callInWorld for Magritte-Morph. > I always liked that solution :) -- Dr. Geo http://drgeo.eu

April 23, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] [OT] TDD is dead. Long live testing. (DHH)

by Esteban A. Maringolo

Testing has become more necessary in the context of Continuous Integration and automated building. You can't have those without test coverage. On the other hand, TDD is rather difficult with tools that doesn't allow you to develop inside the debugger, which is basically everything out there that is not Smalltalk. It's no surprise TDD was born in Smalltalk. I don't agree with the notion of testing the full system, including DBs, I/O, etc. I'd also mock as few as possible. Constraining yourself to test without external dependencies and without mocking (as far as possible) helps you build loosely coupled systems, with a lot of interchangeable parts (pluggables/strategies/etc.). Though as David says, testing is not a religion nor a dogma, and sometime you include a separate set of tests to test the WHOLE layers of your system. But those tests are run separately. Regards! Esteban A. Maringolo 2014-04-23 12:35 GMT-03:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: > More or less what I think: testing is necessary and should be pragmatic & fun, not a dogma > > http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/2014/tdd-is-dead-long-live-testing.html > >

April 23, 2014

[OT] TDD is dead. Long live testing. (DHH)

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

More or less what I think: testing is necessary and should be pragmatic & fun, not a dogma http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/2014/tdd-is-dead-long-live-testing.html

April 23, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] [ANN] BabyMock 2

by Christophe Demarey

Le 23 avr. 2014 Ã 15:37, Attila Magyar a Ã©crit : > Hi Christophe, > > I'm not sure I fully understand, are you referring to partial mocking? Where > you have a real object but with some mocked methods? If this is the case, > then no, this is not supported. Some people consider this as a test smell, > and I agree with them. Maybe the object under test is too big/complex/has > multiple responsibilities, and extracting some parts from it could solve the > problem. I haven't seen legitimitate use for partial mocking so far, where > one couldn't solve the problem with redesign/refactoring in a better way. > Until this happens I'd like to skip this feature. I understand your point of view and I have quite the same ... (I also had the same discussion with Guillaume) ... but sometimes, even in a well-designed class, you may need to test a very small part of this class, and in this case, you need a real object with some mocked methods. It is not crucial because you can test your class as a whole (if well designed, only a few methods are involved) but it prevents to test a smaller part. Then, maybe the work to support a real object with some mocked methods does not worth it. Best regards, Christophe

April 23, 2014