- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

ViDI error: variable named "aModuleName" in NativeBoost>>#loadModule:

by Rafael Luque

Hi, I installed ViDI on Pharo 4 following the project instructions detailed in its GitHub page: Gofer new smalltalkhubUser: 'YuriyTymchuk' project: 'Configuration'; configurationOf: 'Vidi'; load. #ConfigurationOfVidi asClass loadStable When I launch a review session over any package I always get the following error: "Could not find accesor for variable named "aModuleName" in NativeBoost>>#loadModule:" I'm very interested in this kind of quality assurance tools, so any help will be very welcomed. Thank you.

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by Yuriy Tymchuk

Hi Cyril, Iâve checked the problem. It could be indeed easier if the rule pointed to it :). So you have PRFileInclusion>>replace: and it is identical (not taking empty lines into account) to PRTransformer>>replace:. So the rule is correct. You override a method with an identical method. Uko > On 23 Apr 2015, at 12:48, Cyril Ferlicot <cyril.ferlicot(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I changed that but i still have the warning from quality assistant. > > On 23 April 2015 at 12:44, Cyril Ferlicot <cyril.ferlicot(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Oh, ok ! Thank you Guillermo ! >> >> On 23 April 2015 at 11:58, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Cyril, >>> >>> Your problem is caused because abstract methods should be marked with >>> "subclassResponsibility" and not "shouldBeImplemented". >>> >>> - shouldBeImplemented means "this is a method I did not implement yet, I >>> should replace *this* method with another implementation" >>> - subclassResponsibility means "my subclasses should implement a method with >>> this same selector" >>> >>> The tools recognize the first as a normal "concrete" method and the second >>> as an abstract method. >>> >>> El jue., 23 de abr. de 2015 a la(s) 10:15 a. m., Norbert Hartl >>> <norbert(a)hartl.name> escribiÃ³: >>>> >>>> Stef, >>>> >>>> where is "the tool"? >>>> >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>>> Am 23.04.2015 um 08:01 schrieb stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: >>>>> >>>>> Two things: >>>>> >>>>> One: >>>>> We paid a guy to work on a tool to help us identifying dependencies, The >>>>> tool works well is fast. >>>>> if this tool would be in the image, everybody could check that there are >>>>> bad dependencies in his >>>>> code (and there are many around in nearly anybody's code). >>>>> No we prefer that me, pavel, and guille run it and fight with this >>>>> instead of making sure that >>>>> when you commit we get some feedback like: "oh strange that this package >>>>> is bound with this one". >>>>> This tool breaks when we do change in the image and I nicely (stupidly I >>>>> would say) maintain it. >>>>> >>>>> Two: >>>>> Our process is not great to manage external packages and we will add >>>>> more. >>>>> Sure it sounds like the right things to do, especially now. >>>>> >>>>> So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about >>>>> modularity. >>>>> >>>>> But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give >>>>> me good indication >>>>> that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think >>>>> that I'm emotional >>>>> I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. >>>>> >>>>> Stef >>>>> >>>>> Le 22/4/15 21:27, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : >>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 20:22, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 22/4/15 13:23, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >>>>>>>> this is so good. >>>>>>>> what about integrate it to Pharo? >>>>>>> No. People should start to think modular. >>>>>>> No more external tools loaded by default. >>>>>>> Better invest in "add a startup preference" functionality in the >>>>>>> configurationBrowser. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why we do not integrate the excellent tool of baptiste that would show >>>>>>> to people >>>>>>> when they are creating package mess? Because of the same reason. >>>>>>> >>>>>> But the Pharo that we download should be the Pharo we use. >>>>>> >>>>>> We tried the other back in Pharo1.0: Do you remember how we fixed with >>>>>> lots >>>>>> care all details, but then, everyone was using a different image, and >>>>>> all the >>>>>> details there where not fixed and all work was done double? >>>>>> >>>>>> If we do not make the Pharo that is downloaded to be that was is used, >>>>>> we will have >>>>>> that again. >>>>>> >>>>>> I donât want everything in the image, but what everyone is supposed to >>>>>> be using should >>>>>> be there without needing an additional step. >>>>>> >>>>>> Marcus >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers >> Cyril Ferlicot > > > > -- > Cheers > Cyril Ferlicot >

April 23, 2015

Versionner repository moved to PharoExtras

by Christophe Demarey

Hi, I just moved the Versionner repository from http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~demarey/Versionner/ to http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~PharoExtras/Versionner/. It will ease contributions and it will be easier to find with other tools / library of Pharo. Regards, Christophe.

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by Cyril Ferlicot

I changed that but i still have the warning from quality assistant. On 23 April 2015 at 12:44, Cyril Ferlicot <cyril.ferlicot(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, ok ! Thank you Guillermo ! > > On 23 April 2015 at 11:58, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Cyril, >> >> Your problem is caused because abstract methods should be marked with >> "subclassResponsibility" and not "shouldBeImplemented". >> >> - shouldBeImplemented means "this is a method I did not implement yet, I >> should replace *this* method with another implementation" >> - subclassResponsibility means "my subclasses should implement a method with >> this same selector" >> >> The tools recognize the first as a normal "concrete" method and the second >> as an abstract method. >> >> El jue., 23 de abr. de 2015 a la(s) 10:15 a. m., Norbert Hartl >> <norbert(a)hartl.name> escribiÃ³: >>> >>> Stef, >>> >>> where is "the tool"? >>> >>> Norbert >>> >>> > Am 23.04.2015 um 08:01 schrieb stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: >>> > >>> > Two things: >>> > >>> > One: >>> > We paid a guy to work on a tool to help us identifying dependencies, The >>> > tool works well is fast. >>> > if this tool would be in the image, everybody could check that there are >>> > bad dependencies in his >>> > code (and there are many around in nearly anybody's code). >>> > No we prefer that me, pavel, and guille run it and fight with this >>> > instead of making sure that >>> > when you commit we get some feedback like: "oh strange that this package >>> > is bound with this one". >>> > This tool breaks when we do change in the image and I nicely (stupidly I >>> > would say) maintain it. >>> > >>> > Two: >>> > Our process is not great to manage external packages and we will add >>> > more. >>> > Sure it sounds like the right things to do, especially now. >>> > >>> > So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about >>> > modularity. >>> > >>> > But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give >>> > me good indication >>> > that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think >>> > that I'm emotional >>> > I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. >>> > >>> > Stef >>> > >>> > Le 22/4/15 21:27, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : >>> >>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 20:22, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 22/4/15 13:23, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >>> >>>> this is so good. >>> >>>> what about integrate it to Pharo? >>> >>> No. People should start to think modular. >>> >>> No more external tools loaded by default. >>> >>> Better invest in "add a startup preference" functionality in the >>> >>> configurationBrowser. >>> >>> >>> >>> Why we do not integrate the excellent tool of baptiste that would show >>> >>> to people >>> >>> when they are creating package mess? Because of the same reason. >>> >>> >>> >> But the Pharo that we download should be the Pharo we use. >>> >> >>> >> We tried the other back in Pharo1.0: Do you remember how we fixed with >>> >> lots >>> >> care all details, but then, everyone was using a different image, and >>> >> all the >>> >> details there where not fixed and all work was done double? >>> >> >>> >> If we do not make the Pharo that is downloaded to be that was is used, >>> >> we will have >>> >> that again. >>> >> >>> >> I donât want everything in the image, but what everyone is supposed to >>> >> be using should >>> >> be there without needing an additional step. >>> >> >>> >> Marcus >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Cheers > Cyril Ferlicot -- Cheers Cyril Ferlicot

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by Cyril Ferlicot

Oh, ok ! Thank you Guillermo ! On 23 April 2015 at 11:58, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Cyril, > > Your problem is caused because abstract methods should be marked with > "subclassResponsibility" and not "shouldBeImplemented". > > - shouldBeImplemented means "this is a method I did not implement yet, I > should replace *this* method with another implementation" > - subclassResponsibility means "my subclasses should implement a method with > this same selector" > > The tools recognize the first as a normal "concrete" method and the second > as an abstract method. > > El jue., 23 de abr. de 2015 a la(s) 10:15 a. m., Norbert Hartl > <norbert(a)hartl.name> escribiÃ³: >> >> Stef, >> >> where is "the tool"? >> >> Norbert >> >> > Am 23.04.2015 um 08:01 schrieb stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: >> > >> > Two things: >> > >> > One: >> > We paid a guy to work on a tool to help us identifying dependencies, The >> > tool works well is fast. >> > if this tool would be in the image, everybody could check that there are >> > bad dependencies in his >> > code (and there are many around in nearly anybody's code). >> > No we prefer that me, pavel, and guille run it and fight with this >> > instead of making sure that >> > when you commit we get some feedback like: "oh strange that this package >> > is bound with this one". >> > This tool breaks when we do change in the image and I nicely (stupidly I >> > would say) maintain it. >> > >> > Two: >> > Our process is not great to manage external packages and we will add >> > more. >> > Sure it sounds like the right things to do, especially now. >> > >> > So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about >> > modularity. >> > >> > But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give >> > me good indication >> > that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think >> > that I'm emotional >> > I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. >> > >> > Stef >> > >> > Le 22/4/15 21:27, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : >> >>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 20:22, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Le 22/4/15 13:23, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >> >>>> this is so good. >> >>>> what about integrate it to Pharo? >> >>> No. People should start to think modular. >> >>> No more external tools loaded by default. >> >>> Better invest in "add a startup preference" functionality in the >> >>> configurationBrowser. >> >>> >> >>> Why we do not integrate the excellent tool of baptiste that would show >> >>> to people >> >>> when they are creating package mess? Because of the same reason. >> >>> >> >> But the Pharo that we download should be the Pharo we use. >> >> >> >> We tried the other back in Pharo1.0: Do you remember how we fixed with >> >> lots >> >> care all details, but then, everyone was using a different image, and >> >> all the >> >> details there where not fixed and all work was done double? >> >> >> >> If we do not make the Pharo that is downloaded to be that was is used, >> >> we will have >> >> that again. >> >> >> >> I donât want everything in the image, but what everyone is supposed to >> >> be using should >> >> be there without needing an additional step. >> >> >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > -- Cheers Cyril Ferlicot

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by Guillermo Polito

Hi Cyril, Your problem is caused because abstract methods should be marked with "subclassResponsibility" and not "shouldBeImplemented". - shouldBeImplemented means "this is a method I did not implement yet, I should replace *this* method with another implementation" - subclassResponsibility means "my subclasses should implement a method with this same selector" The tools recognize the first as a normal "concrete" method and the second as an abstract method. El jue., 23 de abr. de 2015 a la(s) 10:15 a. m., Norbert Hartl < norbert(a)hartl.name> escribiÃ³: > Stef, > > where is "the tool"? > > Norbert > > > Am 23.04.2015 um 08:01 schrieb stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: > > > > Two things: > > > > One: > > We paid a guy to work on a tool to help us identifying dependencies, The > tool works well is fast. > > if this tool would be in the image, everybody could check that there are > bad dependencies in his > > code (and there are many around in nearly anybody's code). > > No we prefer that me, pavel, and guille run it and fight with this > instead of making sure that > > when you commit we get some feedback like: "oh strange that this package > is bound with this one". > > This tool breaks when we do change in the image and I nicely (stupidly I > would say) maintain it. > > > > Two: > > Our process is not great to manage external packages and we will add > more. > > Sure it sounds like the right things to do, especially now. > > > > So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about > modularity. > > > > But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give > me good indication > > that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think > that I'm emotional > > I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. > > > > Stef > > > > Le 22/4/15 21:27, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : > >>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 20:22, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Le 22/4/15 13:23, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > >>>> this is so good. > >>>> what about integrate it to Pharo? > >>> No. People should start to think modular. > >>> No more external tools loaded by default. > >>> Better invest in "add a startup preference" functionality in the > configurationBrowser. > >>> > >>> Why we do not integrate the excellent tool of baptiste that would show > to people > >>> when they are creating package mess? Because of the same reason. > >>> > >> But the Pharo that we download should be the Pharo we use. > >> > >> We tried the other back in Pharo1.0: Do you remember how we fixed with > lots > >> care all details, but then, everyone was using a different image, and > all the > >> details there where not fixed and all work was done double? > >> > >> If we do not make the Pharo that is downloaded to be that was is used, > we will have > >> that again. > >> > >> I donât want everything in the image, but what everyone is supposed to > be using should > >> be there without needing an additional step. > >> > >> Marcus > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Time traveling Pharo

by Marcus Denker

fixed > On 21 Apr 2015, at 19:11, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > This is not correctâ¦ can you enter an issue? > >> On 21 Apr 2015, at 19:07, Johan Fabry <jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> finally having some time to develop again, I downloaded the 4.0 image sources and vm (http://files.pharo.org/get-files/40/pharo.zip et cetera) through the links on the downloads page. >> >> Itâs a bit strange that the image version is 5000, but OK I can understand it. More funny is the time traveling behavior that occurs when doing World->System->About. It says: >> >> Pharo5.0 >> Latest update: #50000 >> >> [â¦] >> >> Time-traveling from next year back to today! Wow! :-P >> >> ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- >> >> Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry >> PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile >> >> >

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by Norbert Hartl

Stef, where is "the tool"? Norbert > Am 23.04.2015 um 08:01 schrieb stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: > > Two things: > > One: > We paid a guy to work on a tool to help us identifying dependencies, The tool works well is fast. > if this tool would be in the image, everybody could check that there are bad dependencies in his > code (and there are many around in nearly anybody's code). > No we prefer that me, pavel, and guille run it and fight with this instead of making sure that > when you commit we get some feedback like: "oh strange that this package is bound with this one". > This tool breaks when we do change in the image and I nicely (stupidly I would say) maintain it. > > Two: > Our process is not great to manage external packages and we will add more. > Sure it sounds like the right things to do, especially now. > > So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about modularity. > > But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give me good indication > that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think that I'm emotional > I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. > > Stef > > Le 22/4/15 21:27, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : >>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 20:22, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 22/4/15 13:23, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >>>> this is so good. >>>> what about integrate it to Pharo? >>> No. People should start to think modular. >>> No more external tools loaded by default. >>> Better invest in "add a startup preference" functionality in the configurationBrowser. >>> >>> Why we do not integrate the excellent tool of baptiste that would show to people >>> when they are creating package mess? Because of the same reason. >>> >> But the Pharo that we download should be the Pharo we use. >> >> We tried the other back in Pharo1.0: Do you remember how we fixed with lots >> care all details, but then, everyone was using a different image, and all the >> details there where not fixed and all work was done double? >> >> If we do not make the Pharo that is downloaded to be that was is used, we will have >> that again. >> >> I donât want everything in the image, but what everyone is supposed to be using should >> be there without needing an additional step. >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >> > >

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by Norbert Hartl

Can someone explain to me what is the difference between "loading a tool" and "put something in the image" ? I thought we all agree that the atomic image should shrink as far as it can and everything should be loaded on top. If that is the case we can also agree that we don't want to release the atomic image because it isn't useful. So we need to have a discussion about what is supposed to be _in the release image_ anyway meaning what are the tools in the release configuration that get loaded by the CI to produce a releasable image. Taken that into account and the different preferences of people we could have developer released images. It means that one person takes the responsibility of managing a configuration that loads his preferred tools and setup. This can be published on a dedicated page of pharo.org <http://pharo.org/>. In the best case there would appear images for web, visualization, database stuff, science stuff etc. So everyone can express what is pharo for him/her. Norbert > Am 23.04.2015 um 09:04 schrieb stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: > > > > Le 23/4/15 09:05, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : >> I do not understand how âhaving a modular tool in the image â (that does not add dependencies to anything) >> makes the system less modular. > Then why the dependency Browser was not integrated? Why roassal for drawing dependencies > and other aspects of the system? Because dependency browser as well as roassal are really useful, > well packaged, What about pillar? Because it would be cool to have beautiful class comments in the future. The point is how and in which process. > In addition what are the criteria? Feelings or criteria? Oh this tool is cool but this one less cool. > Strange for scientific people no? > I think that we should have a building process that load tools. > We will not be able to put everything in the image: > Did you look at the dependencies between RB, nautilus, history, EyeInspector? > I did because it was getting the mess. My energy is cheap and infinite so I can spend 8 hours > fixing configurations that nobody use or look at. But you see this period is ***over***. > >>> So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about modularity. >>> >>> But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give me good indication >>> that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think that I'm emotional >>> I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. >>> >> You always directly go and argue by âI am now sadâ purely emotional level. >> This is not good. > Read what you want to read. But my energy in neither cheap nor infinite anymore. > This is not a feeling but just a mere fact. > >> >> >> Marcus >> >> >> > >

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by Yuriy Tymchuk

I totally agree with Stef that we should be able to do a rock solid setup of what tools we want to use in our everyday image. But on the other hand we have to design what Pharo is. Because we can even go Ruby style and say that debugger is not a part of the main system, but I see that our strength is to provide people with ultimate tools for development (although we cannot put everything inside). And I think that dependency browser is important and I will continue to convince people that quality of code is important and that we should use quality tools in our daily work. Maybe now QualityAssistant is not mature enough, but at some point it will be :). Cheers. Uko P.S. at the moment we are loosing competition to JetBrains tools because they give you live feedback about code critics. > On 23 Apr 2015, at 09:04, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > > > Le 23/4/15 09:05, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : >> I do not understand how âhaving a modular tool in the image â (that does not add dependencies to anything) >> makes the system less modular. > Then why the dependency Browser was not integrated? Why roassal for drawing dependencies > and other aspects of the system? Because dependency browser as well as roassal are really useful, > well packaged, What about pillar? Because it would be cool to have beautiful class comments in the future. The point is how and in which process. > In addition what are the criteria? Feelings or criteria? Oh this tool is cool but this one less cool. > Strange for scientific people no? > I think that we should have a building process that load tools. > We will not be able to put everything in the image: > Did you look at the dependencies between RB, nautilus, history, EyeInspector? > I did because it was getting the mess. My energy is cheap and infinite so I can spend 8 hours > fixing configurations that nobody use or look at. But you see this period is ***over***. > >>> So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about modularity. >>> >>> But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give me good indication >>> that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think that I'm emotional >>> I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. >>> >> You always directly go and argue by âI am now sadâ purely emotional level. >> This is not good. > Read what you want to read. But my energy in neither cheap nor infinite anymore. > This is not a feeling but just a mere fact. > >> >> >> Marcus >> >> >> > >

April 23, 2015