Hi Stef.

First of all, please include my email in the recipients list. I’m committed to 
maintain the Rule infrastructure, but I rarely manage to read through Pharo 
dev. I was nice that Myroslava told me about this email.

Secondly I suppose that you are working on Pharo 7, because Pharo 6 mostly 
follows the old approach.

One thing that can cause a rule not showing up is caching, and although it 
should be automatically invalidated upon the addition of a new rule, you can 
manually clear it by searching for “Renraku” in settings and pressing the 
“Reset rule cache” button.

You should not subclass RBTransformationRule, you should subclass 
ReNodeRewriteRule. In fact if you check, there are no subclasses of 
RBTransformationRule.

Now about documentation. I suspect that my IWST presentation and the Renraku 
paper (Thesis chapter) are not enough, but the problem is that nobody tried to 
create rules and give me a feedback about that so far. As you are adding new 
rules, I think that this is a nice opportunity to write some kind of a booklet, 
because rules are really powerful and we should share the knowledge of how to 
create them (and we should also simplify the creation process).

Right now there is a “Renraku Quality Rules” help group in the main Pharo help 
browser that provides a brief description of how to create rules and run them. 
I think that this is a good starting point because I tried to put there the 
essential information needed to start with rule creation.

P.S. what would be nice is to generate booklets from Pharo help, because I does 
not make sense to have 2 sources of documentation.

Cheers.
Uko

> On 27 Jan 2018, at 16:19, Stephane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi yuriy
> 
> We defined a new rule subclass of RBTransformationRule and we did not
> get why the rule
> was not taken into account.
> 
> We put an halt in another class such as ifNotNilDo: in
>   - initialize (is there a cache)?
>   - checkMethod:
> 
> and it did not stop.
> We started to
>    to watch your ESUG videos
>    to read your PhD
> 
> but it did not help us.
> 
> Stef
> 


Reply via email to