Hernan,
(1) going straight to a debugger is a really bad idea. Object Arts tried it,
and promptly spoke out against it. If you want the option to skip the
notifier, fine, but I want to the option to keep the buffer of the notifier.
Imagine a recursive meltdown, and then make it an order of magnitude or two
worse because every mention of the problem is a full debugger instead of a
notifier. You've been warned :)
(2) +1, maybe 2
(3) +3 :) Those prompts are seriously annoying. I even have places in my code
that look like
uninitializeTemp := uninitializeTemp.
just to gag the "is it ok to remove xyz". It arises when I capture something
in a temp knowing that I will need it later but have not coded that far yet.
Not quite TTD, but not all that different.
(4-5) options are generally good things.
(6) Is there any impact on performance? OB is too slow as it is. Otherwise
it's probably fine.
(7) I'm not a big fan of the default action concept, but this is probably a
good use. That said, I would probably not want to use it, and would ask that
you make it optional. From a system stability standpoint, I am a little
nervous about having an error invoke the GUI, especially if the tests make use
of #fork: etc.
Bill
________________________________
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hernan
Wilkinson
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 4:09 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Pharo-project] Making pharo more tdd oriented
Hi,
I have made some changes to pharo to make it more tdd oriented. I want to
share them with you to know your opinion and then make the code public.
The changes I made are:
1) When there is an error, the debugger opens directly. Reason: I found that I
always press Debug when an error occurs in the Notifier window. Question:
Should this option be a preference?
2) The debugger opens in a big window. Reason: I always want to debug! and I
want to see as much as possible when debugging. Before I found myself making
the debugger window bigger all the time
3) When compiling a method that sends a message not defined, it does not ask
anymore if I want to change it. Reason: When doing TDD we work top-down, so we
are always sending messages that are not defined and that we are going to
define when running the test. Question: Should this option be a preference?
4) I added an option to save and run the test from the code pane of the omni
browser (ctr+t). If the test fails, opens a debugger to fix it. Reason: It is
very handful
5) I added an option to save and step a test from the code pane of the omni
browser (ctrl+r). Reason: It is very handful (Problem: The debugger does not
work well with breakpoints...)
6) I added a debugCase: message to TestResult and make some changes to the omni
browser to show the result of debugging a test. Reason: Before, when debugging
a test the browser was showing the test as not runned.
7) When running a test, the defualtAction of the MessageNotUndertood exception
will ask you if you want to implement the method (if the receiver is not nil)
so you don't have to select that option from the debugger stack list menu.
Reason: When running a test 95% of the time a message not understood will be
implemented and answering yes or no is easier that going to the stack menu of
the debugger to select the option implement.
What do you think? Comments welcome.
Bye,
Hernan.
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
