Roassal bug?
Locked
 
|
While porting Telescope to a newer version of Roassal, we might have
found some bugs, methods that do not exist anymore and are still called: RTShape>>+ calls 'with:with:' RTAbstractLine>>+ calls 'with:with:' RTShapedObject>>addShape: calls 'with:with:' RTSVGVisitor>>visitCompositeShape: calls 'shape1' and 'shape2' RTSVGVisitor2>>visitCompositeShape: calls 'shape1' and 'shape2' nicolas and vincent _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Hi Nicolas & Vincent,
> While porting Telescope to a newer version of Roassal, we might have found some bugs, methods that do not exist anymore and are still called: > > RTShape>>+ calls 'with:with:’ > RTAbstractLine>>+ calls 'with:with:' > RTShapedObject>>addShape: calls 'with:with:’ I do not understand. RTCompositeShape class>>with:with: exist. I can do: RTBox new + RTLabel new > RTSVGVisitor>>visitCompositeShape: calls 'shape1' and ‘shape2' > RTSVGVisitor2>>visitCompositeShape: calls 'shape1' and ‘shape2' Well spotted. Fixed! Thanks for this email Cheers, Alexandre > > nicolas and vincent > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
On 12/06/2015 19:57, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > Hi Nicolas & Vincent, > >> While porting Telescope to a newer version of Roassal, we might have found some bugs, methods that do not exist anymore and are still called: >> >> RTShape>>+ calls 'with:with:’ >> RTAbstractLine>>+ calls 'with:with:' >> RTShapedObject>>addShape: calls 'with:with:’ > I do not understand. RTCompositeShape class>>with:with: exist. > I can do: RTBox new + RTLabel new right I don't understand either :-) We were drunk maybe ? By the way, we migrated Telescope to the latest version of Roassal on Moose 5.1 (AlexandreBergel.913) So now, you can have Telescope with Moose. One needs to load ConfigOfTelescope -> developement and ConfigOfRoassalForTelescope -> development We are also working on migrating the visualization of Moose in Telescope Several have already been adapted, they are available as Telescope-demos nicolas _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
-----Message d'origine----- De : [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] De la part de Nicolas Anquetil Envoyé : lundi 15 juin 2015 15:22 À : Moose-related development Objet : [Moose-dev] Re: Roassal bug? On 12/06/2015 19:57, Alexandre Bergel wrote: > Hi Nicolas & Vincent, > >> While porting Telescope to a newer version of Roassal, we might have found some bugs, methods that do not exist anymore and are still called: >> >> RTShape>>+ calls 'with:with:’ >> RTAbstractLine>>+ calls 'with:with:' >> RTShapedObject>>addShape: calls 'with:with:’ > I do not understand. RTCompositeShape class>>with:with: exist. > I can do: RTBox new + RTLabel new right I don't understand either :-) We were drunk maybe ? < I think we confuse RTCompositeShape with TRCompositeShape... or it was the candies ? <Vincent By the way, we migrated Telescope to the latest version of Roassal on Moose 5.1 (AlexandreBergel.913) So now, you can have Telescope with Moose. One needs to load ConfigOfTelescope -> developement and ConfigOfRoassalForTelescope -> development We are also working on migrating the visualization of Moose in Telescope Several have already been adapted, they are available as Telescope-demos nicolas _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Ce message et les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et réservés à l'usage exclusif de ses destinataires. Il peut également être protégé par le secret professionnel. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci d'en avertir immédiatement l'expéditeur et de le détruire. L'intégrité du message ne pouvant être assurée sur Internet, la responsabilité de Worldline ne pourra être recherchée quant au contenu de ce message. Bien que les meilleurs efforts soient faits pour maintenir cette transmission exempte de tout virus, l'expéditeur ne donne aucune garantie à cet égard et sa responsabilité ne saurait être recherchée pour tout dommage résultant d'un virus transmis. This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Worldline liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nicolas Anquetil
So now, you can have Telescope with Moose. Why ConfigOfRoassalForTelescope ? What is that? Alexandre _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
This is because we fixed the version of Roassal we use for Telescope In Telescope stable, we use revision 705 Now we use revision 913 (labeled development version for now) We have too many things to do and too few hands to do it, so when something works we block the revisions. We don't have the man power to follow day by day the changes in Roassal, petitparser, famix, ... I guess that explains my previous email: the developement version of Telescope now works on last Moose 5.1 which loads roassal revision 913 (of course, if Moose 5.1 changes, telescope will again be behind :-( ) nicolas On 15/06/2015 22:20, Alexandre Bergel
wrote:
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by abergel
On 15-06-15 22:20, Alexandre Bergel
wrote:
That is what should be a group (or even just a version) in the ConfigurationOfRoassal We don't get better configurations by duplicating volatile information In the configuration of Roassal2, I would prefer to see: - loading Neo-JSON-Core through its configuration instead of direct - using #stable of the configuration instead of a version number. Stephan _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
+1
On 16/06/2015 13:03, stephan wrote:
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
2015-06-16 13:20 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Anquetil <[hidden email]>:
Is that just my imagination, or we just discussed recently on another thread how unwise it was to rely on #stable in a dependency in a configuration? Regards, Thierry
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
On 16-06-15 13:25, Thierry Goubier wrote: > Is that just my imagination, or we just discussed recently on another > thread how unwise it was to rely on #stable in a dependency in a > configuration? > You're fully correct of course. The configuration of NeoJSON only knows #stable, and might not need more. I can imagine JSON to be a fairly stable specification, and as long as no there is no API change (or only added functionality) it can be made to work. Stephan _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
Yes, for us API stability (or only increments) is key Otherwise we spend too much time running behind nicolas On 16/06/2015 13:40, stephan wrote: > > > On 16-06-15 13:25, Thierry Goubier wrote: >> Is that just my imagination, or we just discussed recently on another >> thread how unwise it was to rely on #stable in a dependency in a >> configuration? >> > > You're fully correct of course. The configuration of NeoJSON only knows > #stable, and might not need more. I can imagine JSON to be a fairly > stable specification, and as long as no there is no API change (or only > added functionality) it can be made to work. > > Stephan > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > [hidden email] > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
2015-06-16 13:40 GMT+02:00 stephan <[hidden email]>:
Does that mean that we could characterize NeoJSON #stable as being at version 1.0.X, and the only possible evolutions are 1.0.Y versions (unless we see a major extension of the JSON format ...) ? (In which case #stable on NeoJSON would be equivalent to '1.0.[*?]' for Metacello) ((I don't remember the special character for Metacello versions: *, ?, &?)) Thierry
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
On 16-06-15 14:28, Thierry Goubier wrote: > > Does that mean that we could characterize NeoJSON #stable as being at > version 1.0.X, and the only possible evolutions are 1.0.Y versions > (unless we see a major extension of the JSON format ...) ? > > (In which case #stable on NeoJSON would be equivalent to '1.0.[*?]' > for Metacello) > > ((I don't remember the special character for Metacello versions: *, ?, > &?)) > Yes, when using the naming scheme of Seaside, Magritte and Grease, it would be #'release1' and as long as there is no need for #'release1.1' or #'release2' the #stable will work. There will be new versions connected to that whenever something deep in Pharo gets fixed/changed. If that change is not backwards compatible, the platform attribute might be used to select a different version for the newest Pharo. Stephan _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
Ahem, I noticed just now that I was looking at an old version of the
Configuration that was in the MetaRepoForPharo50
I've moved the instance side catalog methods to class side and copied it to the metarepos. I've not fixed the following": The way #stable is defined now in version113, couples directly to version 3.1.4 of GlamourCore, which connects directly to 1.2.14 (or 15) of Rubric.
GlamourCore has now moved forward to 3.1.5, fixing an issue that
should have
zero impact on its users (15586, #on:send:to: -> #when:send:to). Rubric has also moved forward. Do you really want to create a new version of ConfigurationOfRoassal2 every time either ConfigurationOfRubric, ConfigurationOfGlamourCore or Neo-JSON-Core changes? Stephan On 16-06-15 13:03, stephan wrote:
_______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
That's a bit the reason behind us specifying the revision we want, because ultimately it is can be very tricky to assess if "fixing an issue [...] have zero impact on its users" nicolas On 16/06/2015 15:46, stephan wrote:
Ahem, I noticed just now that I was looking at an old version of the Configuration that was in the MetaRepoForPharo50 _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephan Eggermont-3
In the configuration of Roassal2, I would prefer to see: Done
Version 1.14 of Roassal depends on Version 10 of NeoJSon Thanks for the suggestion Cheers, Alexandre _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list [hidden email] https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev |
«
Return to Moose
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |