Yes I have the impression that this would be a good things to do because
they do not have add that much important information.


On Jun 11, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Oscar Nierstrasz wrote:


OK, so that is why all these silly testHash tests are broken. They depend on Behaviour>>#hash to return a specific hash value. I suggest trashing them as the tests are not robust.

- on


On Jun 11, 2008, at 6:03 PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:

IIRC Marcus introduced Behavior>>hash in 3.9 and later realized that this is not a good idea. The reason is that names of behaviors are not constant because when a class is deleted its name is changed to AnAbsolete..., which makes the name not suitable for hashing.

Looking through ScriptLoader, #update10020 is where Behavior>>hash is removed again. Unfortunately the changes log is a bit unspecific as it mentions only: "changes from Reflectivity"...

Cheers,
Adrian

On Jun 10, 2008, at 22:54 , Oscar Nierstrasz wrote:


What was his fix?

How can I tell what was changed?

Is Behaviour>>hash missing in your image too? I don't trust anything anymore.

- on

On Jun 10, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

Marcus should have a look since this is fix he reverted.

Stef

On Jun 10, 2008, at 10:04 PM, Oscar Nierstrasz wrote:


These tests are fine in Squeak 3.9 too.

Further investigation reveals that Behaviour>>hash is missing in Pharo!

So hash reverts to Object>>hash, which sends Object>>identityHash.

In Pharo:

Array hash --> 2455
Object identityHash --> 2274

In Squeak:

Array hash --> 259007228
Object identityHash --> 2274

Looks like someone removed

Behaviour>>hash
        ^ self name hash

- on

On Jun 10, 2008, at 9:43 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

Excellent!
may be this is the hash of class that changed. Marcus retrochanged the hash behavior that we harvested in 3.9.
And may be in 3.10 they changed class hash too.

Now I do not know if in 3.9 these tests were broken.

Stef

On Jun 10, 2008, at 9:32 PM, Oscar Nierstrasz wrote:


OK, I investigated more deeply.

It appears that SequenceableCollection>>hash behaves differently in Pharo and Squeak 3.10.

Squeak:

#(1) hash --> 22516953

Pharo:

#(1) hash --> 61541560

Since DateAndTime>>hash is ultimately implemented in terms of Array>>hash (inherited from SequenceableCollection), this test fails.

Not yet sure why these two behave differently ...

Already the first line (self species hash) is different:

Squeak:

Array hash --> 259007228

Pharo:

Array hash --> 2455

- on

On Jun 10, 2008, at 6:34 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

We checked with lukas what is strange is that the same tests are green in 3.10.

Stef

On Jun 10, 2008, at 3:48 PM, Oscar Nierstrasz wrote:


I have posted some patches to the inbox to make the Kernel Number tests run, and in the Issues page I propose to delete a bunch of nonsensical testHash tests. With these changes the Kernel tests should all be green.

- on

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project



_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project



_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project



_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo- project



_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project



_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project



_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project



_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Reply via email to