Re: [Pharo-dev] [Issue Tracker] installed some robots

Thanks. This is useful. On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 17:34, Marcus Denker wrote: > > Request Info: Requests more info on issues and pull requests with the > default title or an empty body. > it sets the more-information-needed flag. > https://probot.github.io/apps/request-info/ > Can more info be

Re: [Pharo-dev] Missing tests for FFI in CI

Guillermo Polito wrote: >> >> BOOL GetExitCodeProcess( >> HANDLE hProcess, >> LPDWORD lpExitCode >> ); >> > > what are your mappings for BOOL, HANDLE and LPDWORD? Those are user defined > types :) > I downloaded the stable version of OSWindows from the catalog Stephan

Re: [Pharo-dev] Missing tests for FFI in CI

Hi Stephan, Le jeu. 21 mars 2019 à 21:39, Stephan Eggermont a écrit : > ducasse wrote: > > Hello Stefan > > > > Can you report the exact call you were doing? > > I talked with G and Pablo and the bug they fixed is not the same. > > Now they would like to experiment and write tests for all the

Re: [Pharo-dev] Missing tests for FFI in CI

ducasse wrote: > Hello Stefan > > Can you report the exact call you were doing? > I talked with G and Pablo and the bug they fixed is not the same. > Now they would like to experiment and write tests for all the platform. BOOL GetExitCodeProcess( HANDLE hProcess, LPDWORD lpExitCode );

Re: [Pharo-dev] How to download a patched file?

Clicked "View File" button, then "Raw" button in the new page that gets opened. On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:21 PM Eliot Miranda wrote: > Hi Gabriel, > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 1:15 PM Gabriel Cotelli > wrote: > >> >>

Re: [Pharo-dev] Questions about DebugSession>>isContextPostMortem:

Hi Thomas, Hi Max, On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:35 AM Max Leske wrote: > On 21 Mar 2019, at 11:06, Thomas Dupriez wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > Hello, > > > > While looking at the DebugSession>>isContextPostMortem: method (code > > below), I got three questions: > > > > 1) There is a check for

Re: [Pharo-dev] Missing tests for FFI in CI

Hello Stefan Can you report the exact call you were doing? I talked with G and Pablo and the bug they fixed is not the same. Now they would like to experiment and write tests for all the platform. Stef > On 21 Mar 2019, at 08:00, Stephan Eggermont wrote: > > Yesterday, we tracked down a

Re: [Pharo-dev] Missing tests for FFI in CI

> On 21 Mar 2019, at 13:46, Tim Mackinnon wrote: > > That is awesome - great work chasing all of that! > > Any idea of what kinds of things would have been impacted that we can all > keep an eye out for or retest? > > Also, Is there anything useful we can add to our process to try and

[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 8.0] Build #168: FAILURE

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #168 was: FAILURE. Could not extract further issue information from commit message: Update stale.yml lower stale period for issues: one month is enough Build Url:

[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 8.0] Build #167: Remove flaky test

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #167 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2952 was integrated: "Remove flaky test" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2952 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/patch Build Url:

Re: [Pharo-dev] Missing tests for FFI in CI

That is awesome - great work chasing all of that! Any idea of what kinds of things would have been impacted that we can all keep an eye out for or retest? Also, Is there anything useful we can add to our process to try and avoid this in the future? Tim Sent from my iPhone > On 21 Mar 2019,

Re: [Pharo-dev] About a better filedialog

> On 21 Mar 2019, at 10:14, Hilaire wrote: > > Peter's FileDialog looks so much better than FileList :) :) Stef > > Le 20/03/2019 à 20:09, ducasse a écrit : >> I was thinking the FileList. >> Now I will look at the FileDialogWindow :) >> >> Stef > > -- > Dr. Geo > http://drgeo.eu > >

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Issue Tracker] installed some robots

They seem to all work. The “Stale” plugin somehow marked two already merged PRs as stale… which is odd. But else it seems to work. > On 21 Mar 2019, at 10:34, Marcus Denker wrote: > > Hi, > > I have added some robots to the github account > https://github.com/pharo-project

Re: [Pharo-dev] Questions about DebugSession>>isContextPostMortem:

On 21 Mar 2019, at 11:06, Thomas Dupriez wrote: Hi Thomas, Hello, While looking at the DebugSession>>isContextPostMortem: method (code below), I got three questions: 1) There is a check for whether the suspendedContext (top context) of the process is nil. Does it even make sense for a

[Pharo-dev] Questions about DebugSession>>isContextPostMortem:

Hello, While looking at the DebugSession>>isContextPostMortem: method (code below), I got three questions: 1) There is a check for whether the suspendedContext (top context) of the process is nil. Does it even make sense for a process not to have any top context? 2) It seems that all the

[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 8.0] Build #166: FAILURE

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #166 was: FAILURE. Could not extract further issue information from commit message: add config for https://github.com/probot/stale Build Url:

[Pharo-dev] [Issue Tracker] installed some robots

Hi, I have added some robots to the github account https://github.com/pharo-project For for main repository https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo I have enabled by adding the required configs to .github/ : Work In

[Pharo-dev] [Pharo 8.0] Build #165: 2929-Move-method-comment-parsing-from-Behaviour-to-CompiledMethod

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #165 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #2930 was integrated: "2929-Move-method-comment-parsing-from-Behaviour-to-CompiledMethod" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2930 Issue Url:

Re: [Pharo-dev] About a better filedialog

Peter's FileDialog looks so much better than FileList :) Le 20/03/2019 à 20:09, ducasse a écrit : > I was thinking the FileList. > Now I will look at the FileDialogWindow :) > > Stef -- Dr. Geo http://drgeo.eu

[Pharo-dev] Missing tests for FFI in CI

Yesterday, we tracked down a serious issue in 64 bit FFI. After giving up with our own code, we made a fresh start with the latest base image and OSWindows. We were finally able to figure out what went wrong with two simple tests that were failing in 64 bit that worked correctly in 32 bit.