> On Dec 6, 2016, at 8:25 AM, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> 2016-12-06 15:09 GMT+01:00 Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]>:
> It shouldn’t be too intelligent. Keep the default behavior, and for each
> method add a 3-state checkbox: create (default), skip, force (override). Also
> having a usage recorder would be nice to know if developers are actually
> checking the other state more often than the default one.
>
> For me it is too intelligent now because it is tried to create new version of
> accessors instead of existing one.
> But simple logic should just analyze method name and if accessor already
> exists it should skip it
That isn’t a refactoring. The existing methods aren’t accessors. The
refactoring will find accessors for the variables if they exist (even if they
have a different names).
New accessors can’t override an existing method, for example #name, since that
would change the behavior of the #name method for that object. If you are
suggesting not creating the accessor method for the “myInstVar ^myInstVar
ifNil: [#someValue]” method, then you’ll need to change the abstract variable
refactorings so that they no longer use the modified create accessors
refactoring. Otherwise you can change behavior. For example, code such as
“myInstVar ifNil: [#someOtherValue]” would no longer be able to return
#someOtherValue and would instead return #someValue.
My personal preference would be to request some additional input from the user
in these cases. I don’t know if the 3-state checkbox or something else would be
best. Anyway, we chose adding a number to the end of the name so that these
methods would be easy to rename since they would have a low likelihood of
conflicting with already existing method names. For example, no one implements
#name1 in my image.
BTW, it appears that someone changed the refactoring errors to be information
messages that are displayed at the bottom (and quickly go away and sometimes
appear behind your browser or other windows). This allows someone to perform a
refactoring that failed its preconditions. If you are not looking at the bottom
of the screen when the message appears you think everything is fine when it
isn’t. For example, it let me perform the abstract class variable refactoring
on DependentFields in Object (which breaks your image). Also, since the
refactorings were written so that an error stopped the refactoring from
running, you can now get debuggers when some future step of the refactoring is
being executed when it should be executed. For example, try extracting some
code with a return that isn’t the last part of a method:
foo
self someTest ifTrue: [ ^true ].
^false
If you try to extract the first line, you get an information notice at the
bottom that you can’t extract the code since it has a return, but the extract
method keeps running, and you get a debugger when the refactoring is being
performed on something that failed the preconditions.
John Brant
