Hi,
> On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:01 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2016-08-26 0:51 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com>: > Hi, > > I just tried again, and the latest GToolkit image does contain FileSystem > class >> gtExampleZip: > > Yes, it is there, but not listed under the FileSystem class package. > If you open Nautilus for all gt examples (world menu -> GT Examples -> Browse > all examples) > A Nautilus browser opens, but it shows mostly GT-Packages. > And if you just open a new Nautilus window, select the FileSystem-Core > package and choose "Browse All Examples of Package FileSystem-Core from the > GT-Examples menu. > you won't see any example. > It is "impractical", that you need to select the GT-Examples-Examples package > to actuall find the FileSystem-Core examples (and others). > > Or in short > The FileSystem examples are not in the FileSystem *package* > And the same for other examples, you can not find all "Collections"-Examples > by selecting the Collection package and choose "Browse All Examples” Indeed. Good catch. This should be rethought. Cheers, Doru > Inspect this: > Smalltalk gtExamplesContained select: [ :each | > each method methodClass instanceSide = FileSystem ] > > This is the image: > https://ci.inria.fr/moose/job/gtoolkit/5595/artifact/gtoolkit.zip > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On Aug 25, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Nicolai, > > > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. Please let’s continue. See more inline. > > > >> On Aug 25, 2016, at 6:34 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> 2016-08-25 8:47 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com>: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Hi Doru, > >> some questions and feedback ( I am sorry for my tone or if this sounds > >> negative, it isn't meant to be) > >> > >> Over the last coupe of years Stefan Reichhart and the rest of the GT team > >> worked on an implementation of examples. The work is inspired from > >> previous work done by Markus Gaelli and Adrian Kuhn. > >> > >> As one of the goals of GT is to offer a live programming environment, > >> > >> Isn't this what we already have, a live programming environment, I think > >> for newcomers (and maybe others) this needs to make be more clear, how is > >> different, what gap are you trying to fill. > >> > >> one important issue is how to move from the static code to live objects as > >> fast as possible. > >> > >> Isn't code always "static" and aren't objects always "live", how do play > >> gtExamples any role in this? > > > > What I meant is that I want to be as little as possible in the static code > > browser. Instead I want to write code in the presence of a bounded “self” > > which happens either in a debugger or in an inspector. > > > > The gap that examples fill is that when I look at a static code and I have > > examples about it, I can possibly jump to those examples and code against > > their result. So, instead of coding a method about a FileReference in the > > code browser, I will code it against an instance of a FileReference. Hence, > > we make live programming easier to achieve. > > > > > >> That is why we worked on this library as a solution to provide a link > >> between the static code and live objects. > >> > >> From my understanding, I think this "link" between code an objects is the > >> real valuable new point. This is the great thing about gtExamples. link > >> from code (the example methods itself or methods refering a class > >> to an example object/instance that can be inspected (the raw object or an > >> object specific inspector pane). > >> This is what I would consider the real step forward. You see a method > >> refering to class TextModel and Nautilus or any other tool not only offers > >> a method to browse all Users of this class, but too, a dedicated > >> list of "example methods" where every example has a view for this example > >> instance that let the user show and interact (even for non-visual objects > >> through the "evaluater pane", or just see the code creating this > >> example. > > > > Exactly. > > > >> We really miss examples, I often see questions on the mailing list > >> (especially about spect) that can be explained easily with an example. And > >> even worse, often the examples already exists, they just aren't as visible. > > > > Exactly. These examples are particularly amplified by the fact that we have > > an inspector that can provide a reacher experience through different views. > > > > > >> Furthermore, this examples library also enables the definition of > >> assertions on the examples, and this provides the possibility of > >> rethinking the way we construct tests throughout our system. Tests are > >> great as they help us create live objects and then to assert live > >> properties. > >> > >> This whole thing sounds as if Unit-Test were a good idea but not the way > >> that they are used today, I strongly disagree. I don't see this as a > >> "rethinking the way we construct tests", yes, we can > >> augment the current set of tests with addtional assertions on live > >> objects, but this is not a replacement. > >> "Tests are great as they help us create live objects" This is not my only > >> purpose for writing tests, often unit-tests cover methods and > >> "private-apis" not even considered to be used on live objects. You can not > >> (or I don't want to > >> ) write tests only on "finished lived objects" sometimes we need tests for > >> initialiazation/private code or exception handling I don't see how we can > >> offer this only by using example instances (yes your "rethinking" sounds > >> like "this > >> is the better way to do tests”). > > > > I think there is a misunderstanding here. > > > > When I test, (1) I create one or more objects, (2) I assert against them > > and then (3) I potentially cleanup. At least the objects from step 1 are > > potentially interesting for documentation purposes as well. However, > > because tests are built in a completely different environment than examples > > are, and because they are not casually linked to the code they are about, > > we cannot exploit them to the maximum potential. > > > > The GT-Examples model offers a unification. This means that you can use the > > same mechanism for expressing both a test scenario and a documentation one. > > There is potential to be exploited here. For example, there is research > > that aims to take the all sorts of objects and try to infer types for code > > out of these. We could make this much simpler. > > > > I understand that this is a departure from the classic way of testing, but > > we have already expressed more than 1 thousand examples both from a > > documentation and from testing point of view, and it does seem to work. > > > > > >> However, they do not allow us to leverage the objects we create, and this > >> can be a tremendous resource for understanding systems. > >> > >> In our vision, examples should be everywhere and they should be explicitly > >> linked to the static code they exemplify. That is why the library comes > >> with an initial integration in existing tools (such as Nautilus, Spotter, > >> Inspector). > >> > >> The current solution works well and it is the result of several rewrites. > >> We think that the solution is complete in terms of features, but there are > >> still several things to improve and iterate on. To this end, I kindly ask > >> you to take a look at it while distinguishing between the concrete > >> implementation choice (e.g., the current extensive use of pragmas) and the > >> conceptual benefits of the approach. > >> > >> To ease the discussion, we put together a short documentation: > >> > >> Everytime I see a gtExample method on a class I first think, shouldn't > >> this go to a Help or Doc or Exampels class instead. I don't know how > >> others thinks about this but this is my first impression. > >> For example, the example on your page: > >> > >> FileSystem class >> #createFileOnDisk > >> > >> <gtExample> > >> < > >> description: 'Create a new file or override an existing file with some > >> contents. Open and close the stream safely' > >>> > >> ^ > >> FileSystem workingDirectory / 'test.txt' > >> > >> > >> writeStreamDo: [ :stream | stream nextPutAll: self > >> comment ]; > >> yourself > >> > >> Nice, now the user can see how to use FileSystem to create a file, open > >> *and* close the stream safely. But for me, this method does *not* belong > >> to the FileSystem class it just not make any sense to me, to have a method > >> (*in this class*) that opens and closes a stream. Even if this is just an > >> example, I would put it in a doc-page or a tutorial that can execute code. > >> But again , this is just my point of view. > >> I can not really explain it, having a example method on Morph or a widget > >> ui or a widget model class, that opens an example morph or widget in the > >> world, is for me something completly different and a valid example. > >> Having the same for the method above - is not, at least not as executable > >> code on the FileSystm class). > > > > I do not understand this last point. > > > > Just because an object does not have a visual appearance like a Morph does, > > does not make it uninteresting from an interaction point of view. The > > inspector already can provide the views. We also have the possibility of > > adding custom actions that can be installed as menu items. Even for a > > morph, I sometimes want to not look at its default appearance, but at its > > submorphs. Thus, I do not see the confusion. > > > > Nevertheless, the example does not have to be on the class side. It can be > > in any class you want and you can associate it with a subject. For example, > > all Roassal examples are in dedicated classes. There are hundreds of > > methods, so putting them all on the class side of a domain class would not > > work at all. We showed the example on the class side because that is a > > pattern that people used for a long time and it is a reasonable place when > > you have only a handful of examples. The rationale is that an example is a > > way to instantiate a class, so having it on the class side is not far > > fetched. Also, if you put it on the class side, you get by default the > > class as a subject for the examples it contains which is quite natural. > > > > > >> http://gtoolkit.org/doc/Examples/examples.html > >> > >> That being said, you can get it with the full GToolkit in Pharo 6.0: > >> > >> Is this based on the recent Pharo 6.0? > >> > >> GTExamplesReleaseTests are failing for me > > > > Yes, these are yellow. > > > > > >> Where did you test this? I get some Object>>#name deprecation warnings > >> when browsing for examples refering a class, for example on > >> class FileSystem and menu entry "Browse Examples refering FileSystem" > >> (maybe a Pharo 5.0 version?) > > > > I tested in Pharo 6.0 (60188), but we just got a problem that was reported > > related to Epicea and Martin is looking at it. > > > > > >> The example on the examples.html side isn't actually in the image right? > > > > Yes, it’s not there yet. > > > > > >> The browsing examples of a package (context menu on nautilus package pane) > >> does not work or I don't understand why it does not find any examples at > >> all. > >> The World menu "Browse All Examples" does not contain the class > >> FileSystem, although FileSystem>>gtExampleZip is a gtExample, this is > >> because > >> the example method is in an extension package, should all gtExample > >> methods be class extensions ? This is handled differently for different > >> packages. > > > > Hmm. When I "Browse All Examples" I get a Nautilus with FileSystem > > class>>gtExampleZip in my image. But, indeed, in the latest GToolkit image, > > this example is missing. > > > > > >> The code pane context menu of a sendersOf Message browser is broken (debug > >> menu). > > > > I do not understand what menu item you refer to. Could provide a screenshot. > > > >> > >> From the web-side: > >> > >> "Furthermore, Nautilus, the World-Menu, all Rub-Text-Editors as well as > >> Spotter and Inspector provide access to retrieve, browse and navigate > >> examples from entities within the world" > >> I can not find it, not in inspector, Rub-Text-Editors, only in Nautilus. > > > > In Nautilus and in RubText you get it in the GT-Examples menu (Browse > > examples with subject …). > > > > The Inspector is not yet there, but we are adding it. > > > > > >> And the menu entries are ... unfortunate (see screenshot), what you put > >> in, the whole source as menu label? > > > > Hmm. Something is strange there. I get the name of a method, not the source > > code. What image are you in? > > > > > >> run "run the example and return its return-value" > >> > >> debug > >> "same run, but open debugger if the example fails” > >> returnValue > >> "the return-value" > >> Executing run/debug/inspect returnValue does not seem to make any > >> different when called from nautilus. It always gives > >> an inspector on a dictionary holding the gtexample and its gtexampleresult > >> (is this a bug?) > > > > Yes. > > > > > >> Glossary: > >> "Example: an example is a tiny stub object representing a GT-Example. It > >> holds the references to its dependencies, subjects and many other > >> entities. " > >> What are "many other entities" this is a bit unclear > > > > Icon, Label, Provider, and others that you can add through custom > > annotations if you want to. This part is not yet clear. > > > > > >> "After-method: the after-method is a method that is performed right after > >> the example." > >> After the example ? I thought an example is a "tiny stub *object*", how > >> can it run? > >> How it is run after I run an example for inspection, after I closed the > >> inspector? > > > > Not yet. At this point, inspecting does not prevent triggering of the > > cleanup method, but it would certainly be interesting to get there. > > > > Cheers, > > Doru > > > >> http://gtoolkit.org/#install > >> (easiest is to download the ready made image for now) > >> > >> For those that are at ESUG, I will try to provide a short overview during > >> the Show Us Your Project session from today. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Doru > >> > >> > >> -- > >> www.tudorgirba.com > >> www.feenk.com > >> > >> "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with." > >> > >> > >> > >> <gtexample_menu.png> > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com > > www.feenk.com > > > > "No matter how many recipes we know, we still value a chef." > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Quality cannot be an afterthought." > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "What we can governs what we wish."
