On 20 June 2013 19:50, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Satoshi,
>
> On 20 Jun 2013, at 12:18, NISHIHARA Satoshi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> thx.
>>
>> I run a cleaning processes script such as:
>>       (Process allInstances
>>               reject: [ :p |
>>                       {(InputEventFetcher default fetcherProcess).
>>                       (Processor activeProcess).
>>                       (WeakArray runningFinalizationProcess).
>>                       (Processor backgroundProcess).
>>                       (SmalltalkImage current lowSpaceWatcherProcess).
>>                       (UIManager default uiProcess).
>>                       (Delay schedulingProcess)} includes: p ])
>>               do: [ :p |
>>                       p suspend; terminate ]
>
> This code looks like a nice start for writing a unit test that could verify 
> that there are no bogus processes in delivered images.
>
> We already have a number of tests that do global quality checks (like 
> Undeclared, bogus instances, ..), we need this as well.
>
> Any opinions, comments ?
>

Yes, the only thing i hate in this code is references to many different classes.
These processes actually represent various basic services of the system.
so i would prefer that these services register themselves somewhere,
like that we could have a clean code, something like:

services collect: [:each | each process ]

like that, you don't need to modify this method evry time you changing
the list/implementation etc.


> Sven
>
>> and get 6 processes remain:
>> (80)  745275392: Delay class>>handleTimerEvent
>> (60) Input events fetching process: InputEventFetcher>>waitForInput
>> (60) 1061945344: SmalltalkImage>>lowSpaceWatcher
>> (50)  946339840: WeakArray class>>finalizationProcess
>> (40s) Morphic UI process: nil
>> (10)  845938688: ProcessorScheduler class>>idleProcess
>>
>> is this OK?
>>
>> regards.
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/20 Marcus Denker <[email protected]>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think we should for now just kill them when building the image, I will 
>> check.
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Clément Bera <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> These processes are due to the new integration testing process. This new 
>>> process was introduced in Pharo 3.0 alpha, and we found the bug and fixed 
>>> it.
>>> Recently we backport the new integration process to Pharo 2.0 and seemingly 
>>> it created the same bug but since we read your mail we were not aware of 
>>> it. We need to backport the fix.
>>> We will fix that within a few days.
>>>
>>> As a workaround, you can just kill these processes in your image for now ...
>>>
>>> Thanks for reporting the issue,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/6/20 NISHIHARA Satoshi <[email protected]>
>>> There are 30 over processes are running at startup, Pharo-20607.image.
>>>
>>> <NDOWS-1252?B?vIgyMDEzLTA2LTIwIDEzLjE5LjU277yJLnBuZw=.png>
>>>
>>> regards.
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> "NISHIHARA Satoshi"
>>> [:goonsh :nsh | ^ nishis perform: goonsh with: nsh]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clément Béra
>>> Mate Virtual Machine Engineer
>>> Bâtiment B 40, avenue Halley 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> "NISHIHARA Satoshi"
>> [:goonsh :nsh | ^ nishis perform: goonsh with: nsh]
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.

Reply via email to