Excellent! On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com > Uhhh that's very cool. Quick question, what happens if the textual > representation of the actual vs expected is the same yet the objects are > not #= ? > It shows no diff and then I must go to see the inspector? > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Andrei Chis <chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com> > >> Hi, >> >> I updated GTDebugger to automatically show a diff in the debugger when an >> #assert:equals: fails. >> >> For example if you execute '(GTSUnitExampleFailingTest selector: >> #testMultiValuedStreaming) debug.' you get the debugger below. Also works >> when running tests from Nautilus/TestRunner. >> The context from where #assert:equals: was called is also automatically >> selected. >> >> [image: Inline image 1] >> >> >> Let me know if you run into any issues. >> >> Cheers, >> Andrei >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > >

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Andrei Chis <chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com> wrote: A side-by-side inspector would be another really cool addition for when the string comparison won't work. Oh yes. But I think that adding a side-by-side inspector would be a great second step in which you know you can always fall back no matter which kind of object. BTW...since we are near Christmas... it would be terrific to have a button somewhere to show/hide the #setUp method besides the code representing the piece of stack you clicked. Sometimes when I am debugging test failures that had a setup I always have to open another window with the setup because I don't remember everything I did there and that's useful information to understand what a test could have failed. There was a Nautilus plugin for that some time ago. Cheers, -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Hi, I like the idea. Maybe having a ‘setUp tab; next to ‘Source’ tab whenever we browse a test case object in debugger? Or it could be part of the inspector the same way you did ‘Diff’ tab. Cheers, Juraj

I splitted the code pane into two to also show the setUp/tearDown code. A button/checkbox to hide/show this pane could be next. Cheers, Andrei On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck &lt;marianopeck(a)gmail.com > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Juraj Kubelka &lt;juraj.kubelka(a)gmail.com&gt; > >> Hi, >> >> On Dec 1, 2015, at 17:47, Andrei Chis &lt;chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com>> >> Hi Mariano >> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Andrei Chis &lt;chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>> >>>>> Uhhh that's very cool. Quick question, what happens if the textual >>>>> representation of the actual vs expected is the same yet the objects are >>>>> not #= ? >>>>> It shows no diff and then I must go to see the inspector? >>>>> >>>> >>>> These textual representations can be customized per each object type, >>>> however if they are the same now it just shows the diff pane with no >>>> differences. >>>> Another idea would be to also show two inspectors side-by-side apart >>>> from the diff. >>>> >>> >>> A side-by-side inspector would be another really cool addition for when >>> the string comparison won't work. >>> >>> >>>> Then even if you see or not a difference in the textual diff, you could >>>> use the inspector to look at differences between the state. >>>> Also right now the diff is textual. Adding better diff widgets for >>>> specific data types would help. >>>> >>>> >>> Oh yes. But I think that adding a side-by-side inspector would be a >>> great second step in which you know you can always fall back no matter >>> which kind of object. >>> >> >> I added two side by side inspectors. I still need to improve/disable >> navigation in these embedded inspectors >> >> <debugger.png> >> >> >> >>> >>> BTW...since we are near Christmas... it would be terrific to have a >>> button somewhere to show/hide the #setUp method besides the code >>> representing the piece of stack you clicked. Sometimes when I am debugging >>> test failures that had a setup I always have to open another window with >>> the setup because I don't remember everything I did there and that's useful >>> information to understand what a test could have failed. There was a >>> Nautilus plugin for that some time ago. >>> >> >> Sounds like an useful feature. I'll give a try implementing it. Or if you >> are faster you can give it a try :) >> >> >> I like the idea. Maybe having a ‘setUp tab; next to ‘Source’ tab whenever >> we browse a test case object in debugger? Or it could be part of the >> inspector the same way you did ‘Diff’ tab. >> >> > I think the MAIN point for me is to be able to see the setUp AT THE SAME > time with the code of the failing error. If I have to click another tab to > see the setup and then another click to go back to see my test, then I gain > nothing. Maybe splitting (either vertically or horizontally) the area where > now you see the method source (of the selected stack) in order to also see > (fixed) the setUp ? Or .. maybe a new tab in the below (expected vs > current, etc) called "setUp". That way, at least I can see the method and > the setUp all together (Ok, I cannot see the expected vs current, but ok) > > > >> Cheers, >> Juraj >> >> >> Cheers, >> Andrei >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > >

I think it's not straightforward to get it to work in Pharo 4. I'm not sure you can load the latest version of GTools into Pharo 4. You can load just the packages for GT-Debugger, GT-SUnitDebugger and DebuggerExtensions, however, it would not work by default as there were some changes to the API of the debugger. You'll also need to backport those changes, but that might be more work. If you really want to use it I could make a version that uses the old API. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck &lt;marianopeck(a)gmail.com > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Andrei Chis &lt;chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com&gt; > >> I splitted the code pane into two to also show the setUp/tearDown code. >> A button/checkbox to hide/show this pane could be next. >> >> > Coool!!! > Andrei, let me ask, would this work in Pharo 4.0? If true, then I should > only load gt debugger or a new version of the whole GT suite ? > > > > >> Cheers, >> Andrei >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Juraj Kubelka &lt;juraj.kubelka(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 17:47, Andrei Chis &lt;chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>>>> >>>> Hi Mariano >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Andrei Chis < >>>>> chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>>>> >>>>>>> Uhhh that's very cool. Quick question, what happens if the textual >>>>>>> representation of the actual vs expected is the same yet the objects are >>>>>>> not #= ? >>>>>>> It shows no diff and then I must go to see the inspector? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> These textual representations can be customized per each object type, >>>>>> however if they are the same now it just shows the diff pane with no >>>>>> differences. >>>>>> Another idea would be to also show two inspectors side-by-side apart >>>>>> from the diff. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A side-by-side inspector would be another really cool addition for >>>>> when the string comparison won't work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Then even if you see or not a difference in the textual diff, you >>>>>> could use the inspector to look at differences between the state. >>>>>> Also right now the diff is textual. Adding better diff widgets for >>>>>> specific data types would help. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Oh yes. But I think that adding a side-by-side inspector would be a >>>>> great second step in which you know you can always fall back no matter >>>>> which kind of object. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I added two side by side inspectors. I still need to improve/disable >>>> navigation in these embedded inspectors >>>> >>>> <debugger.png> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> BTW...since we are near Christmas... it would be terrific to have a >>>>> button somewhere to show/hide the #setUp method besides the code >>>>> representing the piece of stack you clicked. Sometimes when I am debugging >>>>> test failures that had a setup I always have to open another window with >>>>> the setup because I don't remember everything I did there and that's useful >>>>> information to understand what a test could have failed. There was a >>>>> Nautilus plugin for that some time ago. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sounds like an useful feature. I'll give a try implementing it. Or if >>>> you are faster you can give it a try :) >>>> >>>> >>>> I like the idea. Maybe having a ‘setUp tab; next to ‘Source’ tab >>>> whenever we browse a test case object in debugger? Or it could be part of >>>> the inspector the same way you did ‘Diff’ tab. >>>> >>>> >>> I think the MAIN point for me is to be able to see the setUp AT THE SAME >>> time with the code of the failing error. If I have to click another tab to >>> see the setup and then another click to go back to see my test, then I gain >>> nothing. Maybe splitting (either vertically or horizontally) the area where >>> now you see the method source (of the selected stack) in order to also see >>> (fixed) the setUp ? Or .. maybe a new tab in the below (expected vs >>> current, etc) called "setUp". That way, at least I can see the method and >>> the setUp all together (Ok, I cannot see the expected vs current, but ok) >>> >>> >>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Juraj >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Andrei >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mariano >>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > >

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck &lt;marianopeck(a)gmail.com > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Andrei Chis &lt;chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com&gt; > >> I think it's not straightforward to get it to work in Pharo 4. >> I'm not sure you can load the latest version of GTools into Pharo 4. >> >> > That's what I was thinking :( > > >> You can load just the packages for GT-Debugger, GT-SUnitDebugger and >> DebuggerExtensions, however, it would not work by default as there were >> some changes to the API of the debugger. You'll also need to backport >> those changes, but that might be more work. >> If you really want to use it I could make a version that uses the old API. >> >> > I don't want you loose much time if I am the only one wanting this. > Personally, for my real client-paying job I won't be able to move to 5.0 > until it's released. But then I can wait. > There are 4 slices that you need to load I tried loading the first one (https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/17069) and my image hangs... I'll see tomorrow if I can make a quick and dirty refactoring to get it to work just for Pharo 4. > > > > >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Andrei Chis &lt;chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com >>> >>> >>>> I splitted the code pane into two to also show the setUp/tearDown code. >>>> A button/checkbox to hide/show this pane could be next. >>>> >>>> >>> Coool!!! >>> Andrei, let me ask, would this work in Pharo 4.0? If true, then I >>> should only load gt debugger or a new version of the whole GT suite ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Andrei >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Juraj Kubelka &lt;juraj.kubelka(a)gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 17:47, Andrei Chis &lt;chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Mariano >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Andrei Chis < >>>>>>> chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>>>>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Uhhh that's very cool. Quick question, what happens if the textual >>>>>>>>> representation of the actual vs expected is the same yet the objects are >>>>>>>>> not #= ? >>>>>>>>> It shows no diff and then I must go to see the inspector? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These textual representations can be customized per each object >>>>>>>> type, however if they are the same now it just shows the diff pane with no >>>>>>>> differences. >>>>>>>> Another idea would be to also show two inspectors side-by-side >>>>>>>> apart from the diff. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A side-by-side inspector would be another really cool addition for >>>>>>> when the string comparison won't work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then even if you see or not a difference in the textual diff, you >>>>>>>> could use the inspector to look at differences between the state. >>>>>>>> Also right now the diff is textual. Adding better diff widgets for >>>>>>>> specific data types would help. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh yes. But I think that adding a side-by-side inspector would be a >>>>>>> great second step in which you know you can always fall back no matter >>>>>>> which kind of object. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I added two side by side inspectors. I still need to improve/disable >>>>>> navigation in these embedded inspectors >>>>>> >>>>>> <debugger.png> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW...since we are near Christmas... it would be terrific to have a >>>>>>> button somewhere to show/hide the #setUp method besides the code >>>>>>> representing the piece of stack you clicked. Sometimes when I am debugging >>>>>>> test failures that had a setup I always have to open another window with >>>>>>> the setup because I don't remember everything I did there and that's useful >>>>>>> information to understand what a test could have failed. There was a >>>>>>> Nautilus plugin for that some time ago. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sounds like an useful feature. I'll give a try implementing it. Or if >>>>>> you are faster you can give it a try :) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I like the idea. Maybe having a ‘setUp tab; next to ‘Source’ tab >>>>>> whenever we browse a test case object in debugger? Or it could be part of >>>>>> the inspector the same way you did ‘Diff’ tab. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I think the MAIN point for me is to be able to see the setUp AT THE >>>>> SAME time with the code of the failing error. If I have to click another >>>>> tab to see the setup and then another click to go back to see my test, then >>>>> I gain nothing. Maybe splitting (either vertically or horizontally) the >>>>> area where now you see the method source (of the selected stack) in order >>>>> to also see (fixed) the setUp ? Or .. maybe a new tab in the below >>>>> (expected vs current, etc) called "setUp". That way, at least I can see >>>>> the method and the setUp all together (Ok, I cannot see the expected vs >>>>> current, but ok) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Juraj >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Andrei >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Mariano >>>>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mariano >>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > >

Hi Mariano, To get it working in Pharo 4 you should: - load GT-Debugger-AndreiChis.249 from AndreiChis/GTDebuggerPharo4 - load GT-SUnitDebugger-AndreiChis.18 from AndreiChis/GTDebuggerPharo4 - load DebuggerExtensions-AndreiChis.9 from Pharo/Debugger - register the debuggers: - GTGenericStackDebugger registerExtraToolsOn: Smalltalk tools. - GTSUnitDebugger registerExtraToolsOn: Smalltalk tools Like this the spec debugger is still the default one and you still have to start GTDebugger from the pre debug window. You can register GTDebugger as the default one (GTGenericStackDebugger registerToolsOn: Smalltalk tools) but it will not switch to the SUnit extension automatically (that only works in Pharo 5). You'll need to switch to it from the context menu of the stack. Let me know how it goes. Cheers, Andrei On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck &lt;marianopeck(a)gmail.com > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Andrei Chis &lt;chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com&gt; > >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Andrei Chis &lt;chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>> >>>> I think it's not straightforward to get it to work in Pharo 4. >>>> I'm not sure you can load the latest version of GTools into Pharo 4. >>>> >>>> >>> That's what I was thinking :( >>> >>> >>>> You can load just the packages for GT-Debugger, GT-SUnitDebugger and >>>> DebuggerExtensions, however, it would not work by default as there were >>>> some changes to the API of the debugger. You'll also need to backport >>>> those changes, but that might be more work. >>>> If you really want to use it I could make a version that uses the old >>>> API. >>>> >>>> >>> I don't want you loose much time if I am the only one wanting this. >>> Personally, for my real client-paying job I won't be able to move to 5.0 >>> until it's released. But then I can wait. >>> >> >>> However, I would like to at least give it a quick try to the dirty >>> solution. As you said, maybe loading those 3 packages and bringing some >>> slices (the ones of the debugger api might work). mmmmm but I guess this >>> will break the Spec Debugger right? Unless the slides also updates that.. >>> Do you remember which were the debugger changes? >>> >> >> There are 4 slices that you need to load >> I tried loading the first one (https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/17069) >> and my image hangs... >> >> I'll see tomorrow if I can make a quick and dirty refactoring to get it >> to work just for Pharo 4. >> >> > Super !!! Let us know! > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Andrei Chis < >>>>> chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com>>>>> >>>>>> I splitted the code pane into two to also show the setUp/tearDown >>>>>> code. >>>>>> A button/checkbox to hide/show this pane could be next. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Coool!!! >>>>> Andrei, let me ask, would this work in Pharo 4.0? If true, then I >>>>> should only load gt debugger or a new version of the whole GT suite ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Andrei >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Juraj Kubelka < >>>>>>> juraj.kubelka(a)gmail.com>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 17:47, Andrei Chis &lt;chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Mariano >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>>>>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Andrei Chis < >>>>>>>>> chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>>>>>>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Uhhh that's very cool. Quick question, what happens if the >>>>>>>>>>> textual representation of the actual vs expected is the same yet the >>>>>>>>>>> objects are not #= ? >>>>>>>>>>> It shows no diff and then I must go to see the inspector? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These textual representations can be customized per each object >>>>>>>>>> type, however if they are the same now it just shows the diff pane with no >>>>>>>>>> differences. >>>>>>>>>> Another idea would be to also show two inspectors side-by-side >>>>>>>>>> apart from the diff. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A side-by-side inspector would be another really cool addition for >>>>>>>>> when the string comparison won't work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then even if you see or not a difference in the textual diff, you >>>>>>>>>> could use the inspector to look at differences between the state. >>>>>>>>>> Also right now the diff is textual. Adding better diff widgets >>>>>>>>>> for specific data types would help. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh yes. But I think that adding a side-by-side inspector would be >>>>>>>>> a great second step in which you know you can always fall back no matter >>>>>>>>> which kind of object. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I added two side by side inspectors. I still need to >>>>>>>> improve/disable navigation in these embedded inspectors >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <debugger.png> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BTW...since we are near Christmas... it would be terrific to have >>>>>>>>> a button somewhere to show/hide the #setUp method besides the code >>>>>>>>> representing the piece of stack you clicked. Sometimes when I am debugging >>>>>>>>> test failures that had a setup I always have to open another window with >>>>>>>>> the setup because I don't remember everything I did there and that's useful >>>>>>>>> information to understand what a test could have failed. There was a >>>>>>>>> Nautilus plugin for that some time ago. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sounds like an useful feature. I'll give a try implementing it. Or >>>>>>>> if you are faster you can give it a try :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the idea. Maybe having a ‘setUp tab; next to ‘Source’ tab >>>>>>>> whenever we browse a test case object in debugger? Or it could be part of >>>>>>>> the inspector the same way you did ‘Diff’ tab. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the MAIN point for me is to be able to see the setUp AT THE >>>>>>> SAME time with the code of the failing error. If I have to click another >>>>>>> tab to see the setup and then another click to go back to see my test, then >>>>>>> I gain nothing. Maybe splitting (either vertically or horizontally) the >>>>>>> area where now you see the method source (of the selected stack) in order >>>>>>> to also see (fixed) the setUp ? Or .. maybe a new tab in the below >>>>>>> (expected vs current, etc) called "setUp". That way, at least I can see >>>>>>> the method and the setUp all together (Ok, I cannot see the expected vs >>>>>>> current, but ok) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Juraj >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Andrei >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Mariano >>>>>>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Mariano >>>>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mariano >>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > >

Ahh. Wrong order for loading packages in my previous instructions. You should load first DebuggerExtensions and then the debuggers. Cheers, Andrei On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck &lt;marianopeck(a)gmail.com > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Andrei Chis &lt;chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com&gt; > >> Hi Mariano, >> >> To get it working in Pharo 4 you should: >> >> - load GT-Debugger-AndreiChis.249 from AndreiChis/GTDebuggerPharo4 >> - load GT-SUnitDebugger-AndreiChis.18 from AndreiChis/GTDebuggerPharo4 >> - load DebuggerExtensions-AndreiChis.9 from Pharo/Debugger >> - register the debuggers: >> - GTGenericStackDebugger registerExtraToolsOn: Smalltalk tools. >> - GTSUnitDebugger registerExtraToolsOn: Smalltalk tools >> >> Like this the spec debugger is still the default one and you still have >> to start GTDebugger from the pre debug window. >> You can register GTDebugger as the default one (GTGenericStackDebugger >> registerToolsOn: Smalltalk tools) but it will not switch to the SUnit >> extension automatically (that only works in Pharo 5). You'll need to switch >> to it from the context menu of the stack. >> >> Let me know how it goes. >> >> > Hi Andrei, > > I tried what you said with the following script in a virgin 4.0: > > Gofer it > smalltalkhubUser: 'AndreiChis' project: 'GTDebuggerPharo4'; > version: 'GT-Debugger-AndreiChis.250'; > version: 'GT-SUnitDebugger-AndreiChis.19'; > load. > Gofer it > smalltalkhubUser: 'Pharo' project: 'Debugger'; > version: 'DebuggerExtensions-AndreiChis.9'; > load. > (Smalltalk at: #GTGenericStackDebugger) registerExtraToolsOn: Smalltalk > tools. > (Smalltalk at: #GTSUnitDebugger) registerExtraToolsOn: Smalltalk tools. > > > However, as soon as I try to debug something I get the following error. It > seems I am missing the class GTSUnitActivationPredicate. > > > UndefinedObject(Object)>>doesNotUnderstand: #new > GTSUnitDebugSession class>>activationPredicate > GTSUnitDebugger class>>handlesContext: > [ :aPair | aPair key handlesContext: aContext ] in > PharoCommonTools(ToolRegistry)>>debuggersWithRanksForContext: in Block: [ > :aPair | aPair key handlesContext: aContext ] > OrderedCollection>>select: > PharoCommonTools(ToolRegistry)>>debuggersWithRanksForContext: > PharoCommonTools(ToolRegistry)>>debuggerDispatcherFor: > GTTemporaryPreDebugChangeDebuggerAction>>executeAction > GTTemporaryPreDebugChangeDebuggerAction(DebugAction)>>execute > .... > > Any idea? > > Weird thing is that I am NOT opening a debugger of a SUnit.. but a regular > debugger. > Maybe the registration part of your script is wrong? > > Thanks in advance, > > >> Cheers, >> Andrei >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Andrei Chis &lt;chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Andrei Chis < >>>>> chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com>>>>> >>>>>> I think it's not straightforward to get it to work in Pharo 4. >>>>>> I'm not sure you can load the latest version of GTools into Pharo 4. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> That's what I was thinking :( >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You can load just the packages for GT-Debugger, GT-SUnitDebugger and >>>>>> DebuggerExtensions, however, it would not work by default as there were >>>>>> some changes to the API of the debugger. You'll also need to backport >>>>>> those changes, but that might be more work. >>>>>> If you really want to use it I could make a version that uses the old >>>>>> API. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I don't want you loose much time if I am the only one wanting this. >>>>> Personally, for my real client-paying job I won't be able to move to 5.0 >>>>> until it's released. But then I can wait. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> However, I would like to at least give it a quick try to the dirty >>>>> solution. As you said, maybe loading those 3 packages and bringing some >>>>> slices (the ones of the debugger api might work). mmmmm but I guess this >>>>> will break the Spec Debugger right? Unless the slides also updates that.. >>>>> Do you remember which were the debugger changes? >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are 4 slices that you need to load >>>> I tried loading the first one (https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/17069) >>>> and my image hangs... >>>> >>>> I'll see tomorrow if I can make a quick and dirty refactoring to get it >>>> to work just for Pharo 4. >>>> >>>> >>> Super !!! Let us know! >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Andrei Chis < >>>>>>> chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I splitted the code pane into two to also show the setUp/tearDown >>>>>>>> code. >>>>>>>> A button/checkbox to hide/show this pane could be next. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Coool!!! >>>>>>> Andrei, let me ask, would this work in Pharo 4.0? If true, then I >>>>>>> should only load gt debugger or a new version of the whole GT suite ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Andrei >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>>>>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Juraj Kubelka < >>>>>>>>> juraj.kubelka(a)gmail.com>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 17:47, Andrei Chis &lt;chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Mariano >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>>>>>>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Andrei Chis < >>>>>>>>>>> chisvasileandrei(a)gmail.com>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck < >>>>>>>>>>>> marianopeck(a)gmail.com>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Uhhh that's very cool. Quick question, what happens if the >>>>>>>>>>>>> textual representation of the actual vs expected is the same yet the >>>>>>>>>>>>> objects are not #= ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> It shows no diff and then I must go to see the inspector? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> These textual representations can be customized per each object >>>>>>>>>>>> type, however if they are the same now it just shows the diff pane with no >>>>>>>>>>>> differences. >>>>>>>>>>>> Another idea would be to also show two inspectors side-by-side >>>>>>>>>>>> apart from the diff. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A side-by-side inspector would be another really cool addition >>>>>>>>>>> for when the string comparison won't work. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then even if you see or not a difference in the textual diff, >>>>>>>>>>>> you could use the inspector to look at differences between the state. >>>>>>>>>>>> Also right now the diff is textual. Adding better diff widgets >>>>>>>>>>>> for specific data types would help. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes. But I think that adding a side-by-side inspector would >>>>>>>>>>> be a great second step in which you know you can always fall back no matter >>>>>>>>>>> which kind of object. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I added two side by side inspectors. I still need to >>>>>>>>>> improve/disable navigation in these embedded inspectors >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <debugger.png> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> BTW...since we are near Christmas... it would be terrific to >>>>>>>>>>> have a button somewhere to show/hide the #setUp method besides the code >>>>>>>>>>> representing the piece of stack you clicked. Sometimes when I am debugging >>>>>>>>>>> test failures that had a setup I always have to open another window with >>>>>>>>>>> the setup because I don't remember everything I did there and that's useful >>>>>>>>>>> information to understand what a test could have failed. There was a >>>>>>>>>>> Nautilus plugin for that some time ago. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sounds like an useful feature. I'll give a try implementing it. >>>>>>>>>> Or if you are faster you can give it a try :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I like the idea. Maybe having a ‘setUp tab; next to ‘Source’ tab >>>>>>>>>> whenever we browse a test case object in debugger? Or it could be part of >>>>>>>>>> the inspector the same way you did ‘Diff’ tab. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the MAIN point for me is to be able to see the setUp AT >>>>>>>>> THE SAME time with the code of the failing error. If I have to click >>>>>>>>> another tab to see the setup and then another click to go back to see my >>>>>>>>> test, then I gain nothing. Maybe splitting (either vertically or >>>>>>>>> horizontally) the area where now you see the method source (of the selected >>>>>>>>> stack) in order to also see (fixed) the setUp ? Or .. maybe a new tab in >>>>>>>>> the below (expected vs current, etc) called "setUp". That way, at least I >>>>>>>>> can see the method and the setUp all together (Ok, I cannot see the >>>>>>>>> expected vs current, but ok) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> Juraj >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> Andrei >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>>>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>>>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Mariano >>>>>>>>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Mariano >>>>>>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Mariano >>>>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Moose-dev mailing list >>>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mariano >>> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Moose-dev mailing list >>> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> > > > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > >

Hi, Yes, I know :) Sure! This is a great addition and we should get more aggressive with these extensions. Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "What we can governs what we wish."