On 4 oct. 06, at 09:31, Roel Wuyts wrote:

> Hello Chris, hello Stephane
>
> Two things for Chris, one thing for Stephane (or for Chris):
>
> 1- I am investigating your fix, and it looks ok. One question  
> though: did you have a deliberate reason to add a new method  
> SystemDictionary>>#renameClass:from: instead of updating the method  
> SystemDictionary>>#renameClass:as: ?   (probably the method -but  
> not your fix of course- got renamed)
>
> 2- I am a bit worried about your remark about the obsolete class  
> and the bad event handler, but I cannot reproduce it. It would  
> interest me to have a look at it, since this is indeed something  
> which should not occur. Do you still have an image with this  
> problem ? A way to reproduce it (I tried running tests several  
> times in different orders but to no avail).
>
> 3- Stephane, yesterday I opened the 7061 image, opened the  
> TestRunner, did select all and ran all tests : they all passed. Yet  
> when I ran the test manually, as mentioned in Chris' mail, it  
> indeed fails. Does this mean that not all tests are included in  
> this TestRunner (intentionally, as a feature), or is there some  
> problem with the TestRunner ?

this is strange and I do not know.

>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Roel
>
> On 04 Oct 2006, at 05:30, Chris Muller wrote:
>
>> Thanks Stef for the quick response.
>>
>> Roel, how can I help?  The test that is failing is  
>> ClassRenameFixTest.  The test demonstrates a problem with the  
>> SystemChangeNotifier, that it signals the rename event while the  
>> system in in an inconsistent state.  For a detailed explanation:
>>
>>     http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2004- 
>> June/079418.html
>>
>> If you run the test in a stock 3.9-7061 image
>>
>>     ClassRenameFixTest run: #testRenameClassUsingClass.
>>
>> it fails because the actual fix code did not get included in the  
>> image.
>>
>> All you need to do is file-in the latest file associated with the  
>> Mantis bug, ClassRenameFix6#2004.3.cs.gz.
>>
>> This fixes the bug, except...  (...whew! after 2 hours of  
>> investigation...) - for the test case to pass, a "bad event  
>> handler" (apparently) from a prior run of this test must be  
>> removed from the SystemChangeNotifier in the 3.9-7061 image (it  
>> references an Obsolete class, not good).  The #tearDown removes it  
>> so I don't know how this got stuck in there.
>>
>> It doesn't really matter, the easiest way to get rid of it:
>>
>>     SystemChangeNotifier uniqueInstance noMoreNotificationsFor:
>>         (((((SystemChangeNotifier uniqueInstance instVarNamed:  
>> 'eventSource') instVarNamed: 'actionMap') at: #classRenamedEvent:)  
>> at: 8) at: 1)
>>
>> Now the test passes, demonstrating that the rename event is now  
>> called when the system is consistent.
>>
>> To summarize:
>>
>>   1) file in ClassRenameFix6#2004.3.cs.gz from the Mantis bug  
>> (http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=1621)
>>   2) execute the above SystemChangeNotifier noMoreNotificationsFor...
>>   3) see that the test passes
>>
>> I have been interested in getting this fix into standard Squeak  
>> since June, 2004.  It will allow Magma users to develop code,  
>> including now renaming (persistent) classes, while connected to  
>> the database.
>>
>> If there is anything else I can do to help, please let me know.
>>
>> Thanks..
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse at gmail.com>
>> To: Chris Muller <chris at funkyobjects.org>
>> Cc: squeak dev <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2006 1:48:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: Collecting actions for RC2
>>
>> hi chris
>>
>> here is what roel told me about your mail:
>>
>> "Stef, I am trying to understand the problem by looking at the URL
>> mentioned in the mail. I downloaded the RC1 image for 3.9 (7061), and
>> ran all the tests, but they seem to work (and there is a test for the
>> class renames). So I do not really know what I can do ?
>>
>> On 03 Oct 2006, at 14:38, stephane ducasse wrote:
>> "
>>
>> On 3 oct. 06, at 04:01, Chris Muller wrote:
>>
>>> Yeeooww!  Somehow this slipped through the cracks.
>>>
>>> http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=1621
>>>
>>> Somehow only part of the above code, the new SUnit test, got
>>> included in 7061.  The test fails because the actual fix code did
>>> not get included.  Would you mind file in the all the code attached
>>> to the above and include this in the next RC?
>>>
>>> Thanks..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>