2016-10-30 11:41 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > I actually think there is no disagreement in this discussion :).
I am not sure about that. > I see it similarly to how Dale described it, but perhaps I am wrong. It > seems to me that: > - Guille and Stef are talking about Core, they refer to the smallest image > that can be useful for a developer and that is being built out of the tiny > kernel. Indeed, Mocks do not belong there. Specifically, as FileSystem does > belong in this image, we should not make FileSystem testing depend on > Mocks. > - Denis is talking about the typical distribution that we now name the > Pharo image. Mocks might actually belong in this one quite nicely. > > Denis wants to have a Mock-Framework to be used for SUnit, and if we have Kernel and Kernel-Tests in the bootstrap image, the Mocks-Framework has to be in it too, no ? > From a practical point of view, it is not a good option to add new things > for Pharo 6. We have decided that Pharo 6 is closed for new features. Feature freeze? Really, since when? > However, once we have the new process in place for Pharo 7, we can > reconsider our options. The new process should precisely make it easier and > safer to play with new things for the official distribution that has > several convenience libraries inside. > > @Guille, Stef: Does this reflect what you think? > @Denis: Is this reasonable for you? > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > > On Oct 30, 2016, at 9:33 AM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Denis > > > > We are working since 4 years now to get > > > > - have a small kernel + tests > > > > - be able to load nicely configurations > > > > We should not add something else than Sunit for tests of the small > kernels tests. > > > > Now people can use whatever they want to test their system but for the > core > > > > we are really picky because loading on single package may add far too > many dependencies. > > > > and it means > > > > - more time to load > > > > - more time to debug > > > > - more time to just understand what did not work during the bootstrap. > > > > So our goal is to shrink the minimal core and not to extend it. So we > will add mock by hand if we need them. > > > > I agree with Guillermo. Far too much pain. > > > > Stef > > > > Le 28/10/16 à 18:51, Denis Kudriashov a écrit : > >> We always said that smalltalk is the best for TDD. > >> But we not have mocks by default in Pharo while mocks is fundamental > part of TDD. > >> So no kernel tests could benefit from them. > >> And more important TDD is design process and without mocks we can't > apply it to kernel with full power. > >> What you think to integrate Mocketry in Pharo 6? > >> It has comments and documentation (PharoInProgress, Help), advanced > features and it is very competitive to any modern mock libraries. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Denis > > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Value is always contextual." > > > > > >
