On 25 August 2012 09:31, Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sean. I am still seing the problem :( > It is difficult to make it YOU to reproduce it, but it is easy that tomorrow > I show it to you :) > Basically, what is happening is that > > ZnClient >> executeRequestResponse > self logRequest. > ZnSignalProgress enabled ifTrue: [ HTTPProgress signal: 'Writing request' ]. > request writeOn: connection. > connection flush. > ZnSignalProgress enabled ifTrue: [ HTTPProgress signal: 'Reading response' > ]. > response := request method = #HEAD > ifTrue: [ ZnResponse readHeaderFrom: connection ] > ifFalse: [ > self streaming > ifTrue: [ ZnResponse readStreamingFrom: connection ] > ifFalse: [ ZnResponse readFrom: connection ] ]. > self logResponse > > throws a mustBeBoolean in the first line "ZnSignalProgress enabled ". It > seems that such expression answered the SmallINteger 30 the first time. > If I take the debugger and I evaluate ZnSignalProgress enabled again, it > answers me false, which is the correct value. > Ahh yes, this in latest 2.0.
I would have expected a ZnSignalProgress class >> default saying "^ true" (or something else of a Boolean nature). DynamicVariables have a default value of nil unless otherwise set. Or, since you're getting a value of 30, something somewhere is saying ZnSignalProgress value: 30 during: ["something"]... which would be very weird. frank > Thanks! > > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Frank and Sean. The problem was quite hard to reproduce. You need to >> rebuild a Pharo image from a kernel using Tanker ;) >> Anyway, since we are changing completely Tanker now it may have been >> solved. I did a quick test (of a similar case) and it works. So once I have >> the example of the kernel again I will trying again. >> Thanks for offering the help! >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Mariano Martinez Peck wrote >>> > >>> > The first time, #enable answers something wrong. The second time it is >>> > called, it seems to answer the correct value. >>> >>> Mariano, would you give some more details about the wrong value, the >>> expected value, and the steps to reproduce? I took a look but I'm not >>> seeing >>> what the problem is... b.t.w. is this a 1.4 or 2.0 image? >>> >>> Sean >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://forum.world.st/serializing-DynamicVariables-Zinc-so-far-tp4643514p4644374.html >>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >> > > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >
