First of all thanks both of you...As far as the tests go It is
ridiculously easy to reproduce the 'bad behaviour' simply by passing a
seq of maps (or records) where the first element is nil...my addition
simply looks for the first element that is not nil and uses that instead
of 'first'. if none is found then the original behaviour (empty table)
will occur but this time is not 'bad' - is indeed correct (there is no
data)...
I'm not really expecting quick turnarounds from core...I'm already using
the modified version of old-table-model in my namespace...btw, since I
didin't modify 'inspect-table' I don't really need it in my namespace I
only need the modified table-model...how can I :require or :use
clojure.inspector (so i can call 'inspect-table') but have my modified
table-model overwrite the one in clojure.inspector? I was expecting to
be done automatically cos I've seen the "var is being replaced" warning
in core.logic...however for the inspector it throws an exception "var
already refers to clojure.inspector/old-table-model"...any ideas? Will
it work if I exclude that var?
Jim
On 18/06/12 21:30, Andy Fingerhut wrote:
Agreed with everything Sean said, except I wanted to point out that making a
unit test for functions that create GUI windows might be a little bit out of
the beaten path of the existing unit tests. There may be a way to create a
unit test that calls inspect-table with arguments that make it throw an
exception with the current version, and doesn't with Jim's proposed new
version, but not sure about that.
Also, Jim, don't expect a quick turnaround on changes to Clojure core. They
can take a while to get in. If you really like using your improved version of
inspect-table and want to use it, put it in your own local library and use it
(or make your own local modified version of Clojure for your own use).
Andy
On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
JIRA - http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ (since this is a "core"
Clojure namespace).
If you have a CA on file, you can create a patch and attach it to the
ticket. If you don't have a CA on file, you can outline what you think
needs to be done (as you have below) and someone with a CA on file can
create a patch based on your suggestions, along with additional unit
tests to show that the behavior would be correct (should be easy to
create a test that fails now but would pass after this change?).
Sean
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Jim - FooBar();<[email protected]> wrote:
the very first let binding in clojure.inspector/old-table-model should be:
row1 (some #(when-not (nil? %) %) data)
instead of
row1 (first data)
simply because it will fail if the (first data) returns nil...
where do we submit minor improvements like this?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
