While riding under the rain I was thinking and I guess that
SystemProgressMorph
=> singleton that accepts several tasks and bars
ProgressBarMorph
=> basic elements
Job: progress bar + title +
I will probably repackage this together and add comments
then I will try to fix the size problem.
Stef
On Nov 3, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> Ouch two problems!
>
> I'm also wondering why we have
>
> SystemProgressItemMorph and ProgressBarMorph
> in addition to SystemProgressMorph
>
> and of course JobProgressMorph and JobProgressBarMorph
>
> to me it looks like this is ok to have
>
> - one with the forbidden flag = JobProgressMorph
> - a default one = SystemProgressMorph
> and the bar = ProgressBarMorph
>
> and I saw that the size of the SystemProgressMorph is not passed to the its
> inner elements leading to this ugly bar getting out of the
> size of the progress bar.
>
>
> Stef
>
>
> On Nov 3, 2012, at 10:12 PM, Ciprian Teodorov wrote:
>
>> Hi Stef,
>>
>> I have seen this problem too, and I think that JobTest is guilty for this
>> behaviour, since its tearDown method removes all bars, even though they are
>> not his to remove.
>> Try removing the tearDown... it work in my case
>>
>> JobTest>>tearDown
>> SystemProgressMorph uniqueInstance bars do: [ :e | e close ].
>>
>> I hope that this helps...
>>
>> If not I think that there is a problem with the SystemProgressMorph api in a
>> concurrent context... An arbitrary class should not be able to remove bars
>> from our nice progress morph...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ciprian
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> Yes apparently the code run by the test uses the progress bar (do display
>> progress) and at some point put its max to 1 (since there is only one
>> definition to process)
>> => boum.
>>
>> since in that case we get a zeroDivide.
>>
>> Stef
>>
>> On Nov 3, 2012, at 9:51 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>
>>> I'm wondering if the progress bar code is not bogus and that it is created
>>> with wrong values.
>>>
>>>> Apparently there was failing test which invoked a on:fork:….
>>>>
>>>> This is strange since the processTest were red.
>>>> Now running them alone brings green tests.
>>>>
>>>> <Screen Shot 2012-11-03 at 7.42.47 PM.pdf>
>>>> Stef
>>>> On Nov 3, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a bug blocking the image.
>>>>> SubscriptOutOfBounds: 0
>>>>>
>>>>> in the SystemProgressMorph class updateJob:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Ciprian TEODOROV
>> Ingénieur Développement CAO
>>
>> tél : 06 08 54 73 48
>> mail : [email protected]
>> www.teodorov.ro
>
>
