Sure, why not? You have the image, which is where all the book writers get their ideas from. :) Check out this method from the test:
testCreateAndDestroy "Was created already" self assert: (FileDirectory default directoryExists: self repositoryRelativePathName). accessor createIfNecessary. self assert: (FileDirectory default directoryExists: self repositoryRelativePathName). accessor destroy. self deny: (FileDirectory default directoryExists: self repositoryRelativePathName)
Doesn't it look like something isn't being tested? (Especially with the comment) So you should be able to pick a directory name that you know doesn't exist (how do you know - see if it exists and delete it first.). Then you can build your own accessor, same way that the setUp method does it, but with your special directory name, and test creation and deletion.
you wrote: Do you think, instead of '0.1' (for SWT0.5) should we use '0.2' (for SWT0.6) instead:
| url | url := (RepositoryUrl fromString: 'repos://SqueakBase/SUnitConfig/0.2'). url resolve build. url := (RepositoryUrl fromString: 'repos://SqueakBase/RefactorAndLintConfig/0.2'). url resolve build
Have you tried this ?
The 0_1 that you see in these strings are the version numbers from the FileSystemRepository. They have nothing to do with the SWT version...Some of the directories have multiple versions, so browse under SqueakBase.
- Rob