Dear P.O.,
tried to get at Jenkins and there to the log messages, unfortunately to no avail. The best I could
get at was some log of the build of the interpreter itself.
Could you please give directions how to get at the log of failing test runs?
TIA
---rony
P.S.: Ad reported problem: this was (partly) caused by a missing commit of the Method.testGroup. In
addition the Object.testGroup needed to be adjusted as well.
On 17.05.2022 10:01, P. O. Jonsson wrote:
Am 17.05.2022 um 09:09 schrieb Rony G Flatscher <[email protected]>:
Dear P.O.,
not near of a computer until later today, can you please post one if the reports such that one
can learn about the failing tests?
TIA
—-rony
Hi Rony,
Not near a computer today I am traveling.
I suggest you log on to the Jenkins system and look there, then you have also the (recent) history
of commits.
This is not urgent except maybe for the failing W7 builds.
Rony G. Flatscher (mobil/e)
Am 16.05.2022 um 22:32 schrieb P.O. Jonsson <[email protected]>:
Dear Rony and others,
At the moment 25 out of 25 possible ooRexx test jobs on Jenkins are failing. I suggest all
developers making commits right now have a look as to the consequences for the tests. Currently
all Win, Unix and Linux tests are failing for various reasons, I think that should not be the case.
In addition building on Windows 7 both 32 and 64 bit is failing, unclear to me why but someone
should have a look.
Hälsningar/Regards/Grüsse,
P.O. Jonsson
[email protected]
Am 16.05.2022 um 20:34 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher <[email protected]>:
Commits:
* <http://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/code-0/12391>,
* <http://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/code-0/12392>.
Also removed "Error_Execution_super" definitions from various *.h files manually as not having
been able to get cmake to find xalan to recreate the files from
<main/trunk/interpreter/messages/rexxmsg.xml>.
Two questions:
* on Windows (having the Java version of Xalan): where to get Xalan from, or
alternatively,
how to get cmake to find and use the Java Xalan version?
* ad documentation w.r.t Error_Execution_super: have not found the relevant
section in
rexxref.pdf, unfortunately. Maybe others can find that and point it out, or
maybe even
adjust the text ;) ?
---rony
On 16.05.2022 14:55, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
On 16.05.2022 14:33, Rick McGuire wrote:
There are also other places where this check is made. Search for Error_Execution_super to
find it. The entire validateOverrideContext() method and it's calls should be deleted.
Thank you for your hints and pointers, will take care of it.
---rony
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 8:24 AM Rick McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
You have only fixed part of the problem. There's also a change required to
MessageInstruction.cpp and also tests needed for that case.
Rick
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 8:15 AM Rick McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
Weren't there any tests for the restriction that needed to be removed?
I only need
new tests added for the case where this is not restricted. Also, I'd
recommend adding
some tests using mixins to make sure the correct targets are getting
invoked.
Rick
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 8:10 AM Rony G. Flatscher
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 15.05.2022 14:47, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
On 15.05.2022 12:27, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
On 14.05.2022 22:06, Jean Louis Faucher wrote:
* So there is a need for having one or more methods that can be
used for
forcing the invocation of the ooRexx .Object methods.
The syntax described in 4.2.7 Changing the Search Order for Methods
could be
used, if the restriction
"Message search overrides can be used only from methods of the
target object”
was removed.
It works with oorexx4, after removing the check
if (_target != context->getReceiver())
in RexxExpressionMessage::evaluate.
s1 = "hello"
s2 = "hello"
say s1~"="(s2) -- display 1
say s1~"=":.Object(s2) -- display 0 because not the same objects
Indeed that would really be a general, fine solution alleviating a
programmer
to come up with weird and cumbersome solutions.
Rather than having to create methods SEND.SUPER, SENDWITH.SUPER,
CLASS.SUPER
and COPY.SUPER to allow programmers to invoke the ooRexx root class
methods in
.object, this problem with OLEObject, but also all comparable in
general would
be solved with this. So instead one could code
* ole~send(msg) ... will check for existence on the Windows side,
and if
present invoke it, otherwise lookup super (which is .object)
* ole~send:.object(msg) ... will start resolving the method in
the superclass
bypassing inspecting .oleobject
and with the same technique:
* ole~sendWith:.object(msg,arrArg)
* ole~copy:.object
* ole~class:.object
This would be much easier and very clear.
In ooRexx 5.0 this would be the place to change:
Index: interpreter/expression/ExpressionMessage.cpp
===================================================================
--- interpreter/expression/ExpressionMessage.cpp
(revision 12388)
+++ interpreter/expression/ExpressionMessage.cpp
(working copy)
@@ -161,6 +161,7 @@
// do we have a super class override?
if (super != OREF_NULL)
{
+/*
// super class overrides are only allowed if the
// sender and the target are the same object (i.e., a
message to SELF)
if (_target != context->getReceiver())
@@ -167,6 +168,7 @@
{
reportException(Error_Execution_super);
}
+*/
_super = (RexxClass *)super->evaluate(context, stack);
// we send the message using the stack, which
Doing so will make your example work on ooRexx 5 as well!
Also experimented with other scenarious, including ones where
"mistakingly"
wrong override classes get supplied.
arr=.array~of("a", "b")
........................................... rexxtry.rex
on WindowsNT
say arr~items
2
........................................... rexxtry.rex
on WindowsNT
say arr~items:super
Oooops ! ... try again. Object method not found.
Object "an Array" does not understand
message "ITEMS".
rc = 97.1 ................................. rexxtry.rex
on WindowsNT
say arr~items:.collection
2
........................................... rexxtry.rex
on WindowsNT
say arr~items:.rexxinfo
Oooops ! ... try again. Object method not found.
Object "an Array" does not understand
message "ITEMS".
rc = 97.1 ................................. rexxtry.rex
on WindowsNT
say arr~copy
a
b
........................................... rexxtry.rex
on WindowsNT
say arr~copy:.rexxinfo
Oooops ! ... try again. Object method not found.
Object "an Array" does not understand
message "COPY".
rc = 97.1 ................................. rexxtry.rex
on WindowsNT
say arr~copy:.object
a
b
........................................... rexxtry.rex
on WindowsNT
So ooRexx 5 already catches wrong overrides and raises the
appropriate
conditions (cf. overrides "super", ".rexxinfo" above)!
---
Conceptually this change will allow the programmer to not only send
a message
to the object, but also to tell the object in which superclass to
start the
search for a matching method if he has a need to do so.
In the case of .OLEObject it makes it simple for programmers to
tell the OLE
object to start its search for a method in the root class .object
applying
existing knowledge! So no need to come up with awkwardly named
methods or
another dispatch.super method to somehow get access to the root
class methods
making the usage/protocol of such classes rather complicated. So
such a change
would simply allow to apply the message resolution override pattern
that the
programmer is accustomed to already.
---
The question would be whether there are any potentially dangerous
side-effects
or incompatibilies with existing code that could get introduced by
removing
this particular check.
---rony
Opened a RFE for this:
<https://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/feature-requests/802/>
<https://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/feature-requests/802/>
---rony
Implemented <http://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/code-0/12390>
<http://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/code-0/12390>. Added appropriate
tests.
---rony
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
