>>
> Looking at the + and - lines in the diff, it seems like the test has two
> added assertions.
> First, make sure those assertions actually make sense, in that they test
> something you would expect.
> Then, try adding them to the image, and see if tests still pass.
> If they do, submit a slice with the added tests.
> If they do not, see if modifying the code to what is pasted in the issue make
> them pass.
> If it does, submit a slice with tests + modified method.
> If not, figure out a way to make the tests pass on Pharo, then submit :)
>
have a look at squeak to see if the tests pass there and not in pharo or
inverse.
The idea is to see if they make sense in pharo context and help us to make the
system better.
Often I read also the other tests and often I improve things (even like putting
a good category instead of as yet unclassified)
Now in the present case this is not clear that
=============== Diff against Kernel-jcg.439 ===============
Item was changed:
----- Method: Duration class>>milliSeconds: (in category 'squeak protocol')
-----
+ milliSeconds: milliCount
- milliSeconds: milliCount
"Since seconds is 0 we can call the instance directly."
+ ^ self
+ seconds: milliCount // 1000
+ nanoSeconds: (milliCount \\ 1000)*NanosInMillisecond!
-
- ^ self basicNew seconds: 0 nanoSeconds: milliCount * NanosInMillisecond!
is really better and may be the suggestion of nicolas should be taken into
account.
Thanks German.
You see a lot of little details :)
stef
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
