This is something that I often need.
I have always addressed this as follows:
Added a 'classes' instance variable in my unit test. Added a bunch of methods
such as:
createClassNamed: aSymbol superclass: aSuperclass instVarNames: instVarNames
| cls |
cls := aSuperclass subclass: aSymbol
instanceVariableNames: instVarNames
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'Generated'.
self classes add: cls.
^ cls
Then in the teardown I have something like:
tearDown
super tearDown.
classes ifNotNil: [:clss | clss do: #removeFromSystem ].
You may also want to remove the empty category in the tearDown.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On 9 Dec 2010, at 14:50, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
>
>
> Noury Bouraqadi-2 wrote:
>>
>> -You want to test something related to classes, and in this case you can
>> use the SUnit extension I introduced a while ago ClassFactoryForTestCase.
>> It's part of the core image.
>>
>
> Cool, that's it exactly.
>
> Now I have two new questions:
> * What if ClassFactoryForTestCase used the separate-SystemDictionary
> approach? Wouldn't you only need to clean up the logs and the classes would
> get gc-ed (even if cleanup was never called)?
> * Is my OP correct that it is safe to do what I was doing i.e. no effect to
> the system (except maybe the doit in the changes)? (I may have another
> application for it)
>
> Thanks.
> Sean
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://forum.world.st/Creating-temporary-classes-for-testing-tp3080408p3080630.html
> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
