Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-11-01 20:45 GMT+01:00 Attila Magyar : > Yes, it has different tradeoffs. For example you have to fill in the > parameters even if you want to ignore them, or it is difficult (maybe > impossibe) to express a parameter matcher that considers the relationship > of >

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

> And with message based approach this problem not exists at all. Yes, it has different tradeoffs. For example you have to fill in the parameters even if you want to ignore them, or it is difficult (maybe impossibe) to express a parameter matcher that considers the relationship of multiple

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-11-01 18:27 GMT+01:00 Attila Magyar : > > They have strings. And first mock libraries used message names as strings > > They are not the same. Method rename and find senders works with symbols > but > not with strings. Some rarely used refactorings might not work,

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

> They have strings. And first mock libraries used message names as strings They are not the same. Method rename and find senders works with symbols but not with strings. Some rarely used refactorings might not work, although this is probably a technical limitation of the refactoring engine and

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-11-01 11:50 GMT+01:00 Attila Magyar : > > BabyMock could not be treated as modern mock library just because it uses > > symbols instead of normal message sends. Even C# and Java mocks are based > > on normal messages. > > Because they don't have symbols :). They have

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

Denis Kudriashov wrote > BabyMock could not be treated as modern mock library just because it uses > symbols instead of normal message sends. Even C# and Java mocks are based > on normal messages. Because they don't have symbols :). Ruby libraries often use symbols, last time I checked rspec

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

Denis Kudriashov wrote > So you don't need blocks generally. > I thought it was seen in my blog post. I guess I was confused by "Also there is way to get multiple mocks at once: [ :mockA :mockB | "your code here" ] runWithMocks" Denis Kudriashov wrote > all projects are compatible. Great!

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-10-31 16:40 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris : > > You can look at features here: > > http://dionisiydk.blogspot.fr/2016/04/new-version-of-mocketry-30.html. > > Ah, yes. I seem to recall one major hurdle for me was that each test needed > everything wrapped in a block. Is

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

I completely agree, I am all for minimal image and then the user should be able to install anything he/she wants through Catalog Browser, I think we need to make sure that the welcome text clearly illustrate this and that the new user is not confused. But that means that you the people who create

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

Denis Kudriashov wrote > You can look at features here: > http://dionisiydk.blogspot.fr/2016/04/new-version-of-mocketry-30.html. Ah, yes. I seem to recall one major hurdle for me was that each test needed everything wrapped in a block. Is that still the case? Could this be hidden somewhere in the

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-10-31 14:23 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris : > While the bits of a BDD behavioral specification might not be > any different from the average unit test, I've found the mindset they > create > is invaluable to keeping the focus on "what should this object do" instead > of

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

Hi Sean. 2016-10-31 14:23 GMT+01:00 Sean P. DeNigris : > p.s. although I don't have a ton of experience with Mocketry, when I > shopped > around for a mock framework, I remember strongly preferring BabyMock (which > I hacked together with Phexample into BabyPhexample; so

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

NorbertHartl wrote > I see no reason if there is a small kernel why it cannot load additional > stuff just for testing. +1. Why would /any/ test framework (including SUnit) be included in the kernel?! And a big +1 to adding mocks to the default test framework, in whatever layer that gets loaded.

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-10-30 11:41 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba : > @Denis: Is this reasonable for you? It is better than nothing :).

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

The context might be right. Still Denis is talking about integrating Mocks in SUnit. And to have kernel tests using Mocks. I don't see a problem because can be loaded later. I see no reason if there is a small kernel why it cannot load additional stuff just for testing. The kernel would still

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-10-30 12:00 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba : > Hi, > > > On Oct 30, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Nicolai Hess > wrote: > > > > > > > > 2016-10-30 11:52 GMT+01:00 Nicolai Hess : > > > > > > 2016-10-30 11:41 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

Hi, > On Oct 30, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Nicolai Hess wrote: > > > > 2016-10-30 11:52 GMT+01:00 Nicolai Hess : > > > 2016-10-30 11:41 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba : > Hi, > > I actually think there is no disagreement in this

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-10-30 11:52 GMT+01:00 Nicolai Hess : > > > 2016-10-30 11:41 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba : > >> Hi, >> >> I actually think there is no disagreement in this discussion :). > > > I am not sure about that. > > > >> I see it similarly to how Dale described

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-10-30 11:41 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba : > Hi, > > I actually think there is no disagreement in this discussion :). I am not sure about that. > I see it similarly to how Dale described it, but perhaps I am wrong. It > seems to me that: > - Guille and Stef are talking

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

Hi, I actually think there is no disagreement in this discussion :). I see it similarly to how Dale described it, but perhaps I am wrong. It seems to me that: - Guille and Stef are talking about Core, they refer to the smallest image that can be useful for a developer and that is being built

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

Denis We are working since 4 years now to get - have a small kernel + tests - be able to load nicely configurations We should not add something else than Sunit for tests of the small kernels tests. Now people can use whatever they want to test their system but for the core we are

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-10-29 0:12 GMT+02:00 Denis Kudriashov : > Because if Kernel packages are tested using mocks it means that to be able > to test the system we need to: > - build bootstrap > - load SUnit > - load mocks > - which will load probably a proxy framework > - then, just

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-10-28 21:07 GMT+02:00 Guillermo Polito : > > You're somehow neglecting how difficult it is to build and maintain the > system as it is. > I am not. > > Because if Kernel packages are tested using mocks it means that to be able > to test the system we need to: >

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-10-28 21:07 GMT+02:00 Guillermo Polito : > And again i'll hold my position: whoever wants to load it can do it. There >>> is no need to put it there by default. >>> >> Do you know how much easier it would be to design and test FileSystem >> with mocks. Code and

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

It seems to me that there perhaps needs to be more clarity here ... I think there is perhaps a difference in between "kernel tests should have fewer depencies" and "mocks missing from Pharo". Is "Pharo" and "kernel" synonymous? I imagine that there is a minimal/minimum kernel image that has

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-10-28 16:07 GMT-03:00 Guillermo Polito : > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Denis Kudriashov > wrote: >> And there is another story. Imaging Ruby guys join Pharo development (not >> real story :)). Many years In Ruby people use mocks and

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Denis Kudriashov wrote: > > 2016-10-28 18:58 GMT+02:00 Guillermo Polito : > >> No, please, kernel test should have the fewer dependencies as possible! >> > I would say this dependency is needed. > You're somehow

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

2016-10-28 18:58 GMT+02:00 Guillermo Polito : > No, please, kernel test should have the fewer dependencies as possible! > I would say this dependency is needed. > And again i'll hold my position: whoever wants to load it can do it. There > is no need to put it there by

Re: [Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

No, please, kernel test should have the fewer dependencies as possible! And again i'll hold my position: whoever wants to load it can do it. There is no need to put it there by default. Le 28 oct. 2016 18:52, "Denis Kudriashov" a écrit : > We always said that smalltalk is

[Pharo-dev] Mocks are missing in Pharo (from thread OSProcess is missing)

We always said that smalltalk is the best for TDD. But we not have mocks by default in Pharo while mocks is fundamental part of TDD. So no kernel tests could benefit from them. And more important TDD is design process and without mocks we can't apply it to kernel with full power. What you think