Hi tim Can you report it precisely because right now it is not actionable. And yes doing something is a challenge. Doing nothing is much more confortable because nothing breaks, and you die relaxed.
Stef > On 20 Mar 2019, at 20:17, Tim Mackinnon <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ironically - one of my Exercism testers hit an issue with extract method > about when you typed this... it’s seems there has a difference between > “Suggestions | Extract method” and “Source Code | Extract method” sigh... > the former gives a walk back ... and it’s due to a strange misspelled > variable “previousSelectionHighligth” not being initialised. > > So yeah - this all needs testing and fixing. > > Tim > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 20 Mar 2019, at 17:16, ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> to relax I was going over RB code because we will start to improve the >> refactoring. >> And I started to add tests (yes the dummy little things that everybody can >> write but >> that most people prefer to think they do and talk about). >> And writing such super super stupid tests >> >> testCheckInvalidMethodName >> "Usually used to validate input." >> >> self deny: (RBCondition checkMethodName: 'fofo fo'). >> self deny: (RBCondition checkMethodName: '123fofo'). >> "self deny: (RBCondition checkMethodName: 'foo::')." >> "self deny: (RBCondition checkMethodName: 'agr:goo:aa').” >> >> >> checkMethodName: aString >> "Return whether the argument aName is can represent a selector" >> >> ^ aString isString and: [ RBScanner isSelector: aString ] >> >> >> I found that RBScanner reports that >> >> #foo:: or 'agr:goo:aa’ is a valid selector :( >> >> So if you **really** want to help pharo this is not that difficult. >> >> Now this is a matter of will. >> >> Stef >> > >
