On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Alan Gauld <alan.ga...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 24/04/15 20:09, boB Stepp wrote: >>
>> allowed to install anything else, strange as this may sound! Since the >> only functional editors in these bare-bones Solaris 10 environments >> are some simplistic default editor that I do not know the name of and >> vi, > > > vi is a great editor, no major problems there, except it > doesn't have Python syntax awareness/coloring etc. I am quite happy with vi! I did not mean to imply otherwise. However, as you know I have only very recently started using Vim at home and don't consider myself productive in it yet. My game plan, is once I do, to start doing my editing at work directly in Solaris 10 on vi. > However from memory doesn't Solaris 10 come with a CDE GUI? > If so it should have a graphical editor in there someplace too. > It was a reasonable coding editor in that it did block indenting, > bracket matching, etc. Your memory is indeed correct as to CDE. It has a default graphical editor, the one I referred to as "simplistic", but if it has those features I have missed them. When I say "default", it is this editor that will pop up if I open a file for editing. I will look through the menus and help again. Maybe I gave it short shrift too soon! That does not mean that there is not another graphical editor in there somewhere. I will poke around some more. But it seems, Alan, that whenever I look for something that is *supposed* to be there, I find basically a stub of an application that is missing required libraries, etc. The installers of the planning software deliberately do NOT install a substantial amount of what would normally be there in any *normal* installation of Solaris. I once *begged* the support people for this planning system to install the missing stuff for Emacs, but they refused. Of course, this is after I found someone who even knew what Emacs was, but that is another story... But I may have to revisit all of this. We went to "Smart Enterprise" on this software about a year ago. I managed to abscond with one of the 810X boxes, with the planning software intact. I got my administration to let me keep it as my development and testing environment, since they do value the programs I generate (Whenever I get time to work on them, which is usually rare.). I think now that as long as I stay on this box, that no one will mind if I install anything. I just need not to do so on our Smart Enterprise clinical planning environment. I actually started to explore this route about a half-year or so ago, having figured out how to get the 810X connected to the Internet, but then I got distracted since by what they really pay me to do! > And of course it has the original SCCS for source control. > Which if there's only a few of you is adequate, and easy > to work with. I used SCCS on several major projects over > a 10 year period. There is just lil ol' me. I will have to research SCCS. >> And if successful automated testing can be done with this CSA >> situation, how difficult is it to backtrack and add test suites to >> stuff already written and being used? > > > That's the traditional way of doing testing! Its not that hard > if you can figure out a test environment. but from what I recall > this CSA is a GUI? That makes injecting messages/commands much > harder. There are tools that can do it but you can't install > them... It is a GUI. If I can initiate the testing process from within the CSA with a small script in its language AND have the testing software generate appropriate files in the CSA's language, then I can see how it all would work. But it sounds like I would have to write (and test) an interface program between the two. Of course I am just starting the path to learning TDD, so that will probably be at least a little ways off... > In your case building a usable test environment may be the > barrier, building the test is an evolutionary process that > shouldn't be too hard. I guess this is what I was thinking about just above... > If you have a CLI interface then file redirection makes > it relatively easy! If you can interact with its database > then stored procedures might provide away in. I do. But I don't see where you are going with this yet as I do not know enough about how these testing enviroments, etc. work yet. -- boB _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
