Le 15/11/2017 à 01:19, Ben Coman a écrit :
On 14 November 2017 at 23:55, Thomas Dupriez
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
While working on writing a test, I discovered that just using
stepThrough instead of stepOver may not be the definitive solution.
# Example1: When using the `value` message directly (instead of
calling a method that does that as in my previous example), the
RunToHere moves the debugSession to the `value` message and not
the inside of the block.
`meth2
self halt.
[
1+1.
2+2."< cursor before the RunToHere"
] ">"value"<result of the RunToHere".
3+3.
"Two stepInto are required after the RunToHere to reach the
cursor (the `+2` message)"`
# Example2: Going back to using a dedicated method for evaluating
the block, but increasing the block's size. The RunToHere moves
the debugSession to the first message of the block instead of the
pointed one.
`meth3
self halt.
MyClass new evalBlock:
[
1">"+1"< result of the RunToHere".
2+2."< cursor before the RunToHere"
].
3+3.
"One stepInto is required after the RunToHere to reach the
cursor (the `+2` message)"`
cheers -thomas
In both cases, what happens with an additional step-Through?
cheers -ben
# Example1*:
Operation: RunToHere with cursor at the end of the `2+2.` line + 1
stepThrough.
Result: DebugSession at the `+1`, first instruction of the block but not
the intended position.
Note: Doing an additional stepThrough brings the debugSession to the
intended `+2`.
`meth2
self halt.
[
1">"+1"<"."result of the RunToHere + 1 stepThrough"
2+2."< cursor before the RunToHere"
] ">"value"<result of the RunToHere".
3+3.
"Two stepInto are required after the RunToHere to reach the cursor
(the `+2` message)"`
# Example2*:
Operation: RunToHere with cursor at the end of the `2+2.` line + 1
stepThrough
Result: DebugSession at the intended `+2` position.
Note: The additional stepThrough just moves the DebugSession to the next
instruction. See Example3 for what happens when the target instruction
is further away.
`meth3
self halt.
MyClass new evalBlock:
[
1">"+1"< result of the RunToHere".
2">"+2"<result of RunToHere+1stepThrough"."< cursor before the
RunToHere"
].
3+3.
"One stepInto is required after the RunToHere to reach the cursor
(the `+2` message)"`
# Example3:
Operation: RunToHere with cursor at the end of the `3+3.` line. + 1
stepThrough.
Result: DebugSession is at the `+2` instruction, not the intended `+3` one.
`meth4
self halt.
MyClass new evalBlock:
[
1">"+1"< result of the RunToHere".
2">"+2"<result of RunToHere+1stepThrough".
3">"+3"<result of RunToHere+2stepThrough"."< cursor before the
RunToHere"
].
4+4.
"One stepInto is required after the RunToHere to reach the cursor
(the `+2` message)"`
cheers -thomas
Le 13/11/2017 à 17:23, Thomas Dupriez a écrit :
Le 13/11/2017 à 15:56, Ben Coman a écrit :
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Thomas Dupriez
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Le 13/11/2017 à 14:08, Ben Coman a écrit :
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Thomas Dupriez
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I dug a bit in this issue. Here are the results:
# Problem raised by Stephanne
Code like the following is open in the debugger:
`myMethod
1+1. <PROGRAMCOUNTER>
MyClass new myEvalBlock: [
2+2. <CURSOR>
].
3+3.`
The program counter is on the 1+1, the cursor is at the
end of the 2+2 line.
Right-click, "Run to here".
-> the program counter moves to the 3+3, and does not
stop at the 2+2 (where the cursor is). Even though the
2+2 does get evaluated (the myEvalBlock method
evaluates the blocks it receives).
If there was no code after the block, the debugger
would jump back to the caller of myMethod.
# Why this happens
The implementation of RunToHere (source code below) is
basically to stepOver until the context is different or
the source code position of the program counter is
higher or equal to the source code position of the
cursor/selection.
Since the debugger uses stepOver, it executes
myEvalBlock without stopping, reaches the 3+3 and see
it has gone further than the source code position of
the cursorm so it stops.
Source code of DebugSession>>#runToSelection:inContext:
`runToSelection: selectionInterval inContext: aContext
"Attempt to step over instructions in
selectedContext until the
execution reaches the selected instruction.
This happens when the
program counter passes the begining of
selectionInterval.
A not nill and valid interval is expected."
(self pcRangeForContext: aContext) first >=
selectionInterval first
ifTrue: [ ^self ].
self stepOver: aContext.
[ aContext == self interruptedContext and: [
(self pcRangeForContext: aContext) first <
selectionInterval first ] ]
whileTrue: [ self stepOver: aContext ]`
# Observations and thoughts
- Replacing the stepOver with a stepInto -> This made
the RunToHere stops when resolving the 'new' message
(because the context changes).
Thanks for looking into this Thomas.
What happens if you use stepThrough rather than stepInto?
cheers -ben
Using `stepThrough: aContext` instead of `stepInto:
aContext`, the RunToHere in the block stops at the intended
place: the 2+2.
Printing the sequence of `self pcRangeForContext: aContext`
yields the following. It doesn't show precisely the stop in
the block, and instead shows an interval encompassing the
whole block. That's what I was using to see where the
execution was going during the RunToHere loop so I guess
that's not a precise enough indicator for this situation...
(21 to: 22)(34 to: 36)(49 to: 60)(38 to: 60)(38 to: 60)
I also tried the case where the block does not get evaluated
(changing myEvalBlock so that it does nothing). In this
situation, the RunToHere with a stepThrough ends up at the
intended place, the 3+3.
So... just use stepThrough for the RunToHere I guess?
Seems like expected behaviour.
Could you create an Issue/Pull Request to provide some concrete
code to review?
Now the trick will be if you can devise some tests to go with this.
For examples perhaps look at senders of
newDebugSessionNamed:startedAt:
including SpecDebugger>>testBasic.
cheers -ben
I opened an issue on FogBugz:
https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/20687/
<https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/20687/>
Attached are the file out of the test code (MyClass.st) and the
fixed runToSelection:inContext:
(DebugSession-runToSelectioninContext).
I'll make a pull request tomorrow.
For the test, I'm thinking about something like the following,
that checks the source code position of the pc after the
runToSelection. (It's not working yet)
Now that I think of it, the source code position of the pc will
maybe be the whole block (as experienced earlier) so this
approach may end up not working.
I'll come back to that tomorrow.
Draft for a test:
`testRunToSelectionInContext
|context_ process_ session_|
"The variable names have an underscore to distinguish them
from those declared in the setUp method of this TestCase
(DebuggerModelTest), which are not suited for this test (because
not making a debug session out of suitable code)"
context_ := [1+1.
self evalBlock:[2+2].
3+3.
] asContext.
process_ := Process
forContext: context_
priority: Processor userInterruptPriority.
session_:= process_ newDebugSessionNamed: 'test session'
startedAt: context_.
session_ runToSelection: (Interval from: 28 to: 27)
inContext: context_.
self assert: ((session_ pcRangeForContext: context_) first == 3)`
cheers - Thomas
Thomas
- Replacing the stepOver with stepInto and removing the
equal condition on contexts -> The RunToHere goes to
the 3+3. Looking at the source code position of the
program counter, it doesn't enter the block and seems
to resolve it in a single step. I don't really get why
that is, considering using the stepInto button of the
debugger does enter the block. Here is the series of
source code positions of the program counter during the
RunToHere: (21 to: 22)(34 to: 36)(34 to: 36)(49 to:
60)(38 to: 60)(38 to: 60)(65 to: 66).
However, removing the equal condition on contexts means
that if the method call returns before reaching the
cursor, it won't stop!
- An idea could be to have the RunToHere place a
metalink on the selected node and let the execution run
until it hits the metalink, which then updates the
debugger. Potential problems are that it implies
installing a metalink on a method that is already on
the stack, which may not be that easy to do properly
(in particular, it affects the program counter since it
changes the bytecode), and there is the potential case
where the metalink is never reached (for example
imagine the myEvalBlock: method of my example is just
storing the block and not evaluating it).
Cheers,
Thomas
Le 09/11/2017 à 22:06, Stephane Ducasse a écrit :
Agreed. Thomas? It would be a good bone to ... (Un
bon os a ronger) .
Stef
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Tudor Girba
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
The basic tools, such as debugger, are expected
to work. If something does not work, it’s a bug.
Cheers,
Doru
On Nov 8, 2017, at 11:59 PM, Tim Mackinnon
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
I think it's broken in Pharo 6 too, as I
often find it unreliable.
It's hard to know what should work anymore
- we really need a stabilisation release to
let the dust settle.
I'm always a bit reticent to report things
as I'm not sure what you expect to work.
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Nov 2017, at 20:40, Stephane
Ducasse <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi
I have the following method and I have
my cursor -MY CURSOR HERE-
I select the menu run to here and ....
I exit the method.
:(
Is run to here working in Pharo 70?
I start to get worry about the number
of bugs I get when using Pharo70.
Stef
fileOut
"File out the receiver, to a file whose
name is a function of the
change-set name and a unique numeric tag."
| nameToUse |
self halt.
self class
promptForDefaultChangeSetDirectoryIfNecessary.
nameToUse := (self
defaultChangeSetDirectory / self name ,
'cs')
nextVersion basename.
UIManager default
showWaitCursorWhile:
[
| internalStream |
internalStream := (String new: 10000)
writeStream.
-MY CURSOR HERE-
internalStream
header;
timeStamp.
self fileOutPreambleOn: internalStream.
self fileOutOn: internalStream.
self fileOutPostscriptOn: internalStream.
CodeExporter
writeSourceCodeFrom: internalStream
baseName: (nameToUse copyFrom: 1 to:
nameToUse size - 3)
isSt: false ]
--
www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com>
www.feenk.com <http://www.feenk.com>
"Value is always contextual."
