Hi all,
bumping this again. :-) I'm attaching an updated changeset after I have merged SimulationSideEffectWarning into the trunk today. What do you think: Do we want these dialogs in the trunk or not? We could also hide them behind an (opt-out?) preference. Are you dealing with any systems that involve so much multiprocessing that these dialogs would become irritating?
Best,
Christoph
=============== Summary ===============
Change Set: debugFork
Date: 6 February 2022
Author: Christoph Thiede
This changeset allows to debug forked/resumed processes. When users steps through/into a send that will resume another process, they are presented a small dialog to either resume the process or debug it.
See: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2022-January/218552.html
=============== Diff ===============
Debugger>>handleLabelUpdatesIn:whenExecuting: {context stack menu} · ct 3/3/2024 20:18 (changed)
handleLabelUpdatesIn: aBlock whenExecuting: aContext
"Send the selected message in the accessed method, and regain control
after the invoked method returns."
+
+ | originalProcess |
+ originalProcess := Processor activeProcess.
^aBlock
on: Notification
do: [:ex|
(ex tag isArray
and: [ex tag size = 2
and: [(ex tag first == aContext or: [ex tag first hasSender: aContext])]])
ifTrue:
[self labelString: ex tag second description.
ex resume]
ifFalse:
- [ex pass]]+ [ex pass]]
+
+ on: SimulationSideEffectWarning
+ do: [:ex |
+ ex isControlPrimitive ifTrue: [ex unsuppress].
+ ex primitive = 87 "primitiveResume" ifTrue:
+ [| process |
+ process := ex theReceiver.
+ (Project uiManager
+ chooseOptionFromLabeledValues: (OrderedDictionary new
+ at: 'Continue and resume (default)' translated put: [ex resume];
+ at: 'Debug the new process' translated put: [process debug. ex skipPrimitive];
+ yourself)
+ title: ('The process you are debugging is starting or resuming another process:\\ {1}\\Would you like to debug the new process?' withCRs translated asText format: {process printString asText
+ allBold;
+ addAttribute: (TextInspectIt on: process);
+ yourself})) value.
+ ex resume "fallback"].
+ ex resume:
+ "Avoid infinite recursion in Process>>effectiveProcess when debugging this warning, because the warning while the simulator was evaluating on behalf of the interrupted process."
+ (originalProcess
+ evaluate: [ex defaultAction]
+ onBehalfOf: nil)]
---
Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk
On 2023-11-11T20:00:29+01:00, christoph.thiede@student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to bump these two proposals - SimulationSideEffectWarning [1] and "debug through forks". The former is basically a refactoring/refinition of existing warnings for certain primitives in the simulator and adds a hook for ignoring certain primitives, which I already discussed with Marcel. The latter, which depends on the former, is more experimental, but I would be curious how you receive such a feature and whether it makes debugging with multilpe processes more insightful or just more cumbersome.
>
> Can I merge SimulationSideEffectWarning? What about the other? :-)
>
> Best,
> Christoph
>
> [1] https://lists.squeakfoundation.org/archives/list/squeak-dev(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org/message/L2FSLGLNQUXDCTA27WBOFZTOYWXHUQGR/
>
> ---
> Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk
>
> On 2022-02-06T20:06:11+00:00, christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote:
>
> > And because two pictures say more than two-thousand words ...
> >
> >
> > [cid:199fca0b-9899-401f-bc76-4e481cc26545]
> >
> >
> > If you choose the first option, everything will behave as usual. If you choose the second option, a second debugger will open:
> >
> >
> > [cid:eafe9018-ab85-4001-be49-dbe183539cc4]
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Christoph
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Von: Squeak-dev <squeak-dev-bounces(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org> im Auftrag von Thiede, Christoph
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 6. Februar 2022 21:02:17
> > An: squeak-dev(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Betreff: Re: [squeak-dev] Debugging through #fork
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > please see the attached changeset which implements "debugging through fork" based on SimulationSideEffect. Please load SimulationSideEffectWarning.5.cs before loading the attached changeset.
> >
> > Hope you like it! Still, I did not withdraw my caveats from my previous message, so maybe we should test this change for some more time. I would recommend merging this patch after the release (but SimulationSideEffect) before the release. Looking forward to your opinions. :-)
> >
> > Best,
> > Christoph
> >
> > =============== Summary ===============
> >
> > Change Set: debugFork
> > Date: 6 February 2022
> > Author: Christoph Thiede
> >
> > This changeset allows to debug forked/resumed processes. When users steps through/into a send that will resume another process, they are presented a small dialog to either resume the process or debug it.
> >
> > See: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2022-January/218552.html
> >
> > =============== Diff ===============
> >
> > Debugger>>handleLabelUpdatesIn:whenExecuting: {context stack menu} · ct 2/6/2022 20:40 (changed)
> > handleLabelUpdatesIn: aBlock whenExecuting: aContext
> > "Send the selected message in the accessed method, and regain control
> > after the invoked method returns."
> >
> > ^aBlock
> > on: Notification
> > do: [:ex|
> > (ex tag isArray
> > and: [ex tag size = 2
> > and: [(ex tag first == aContext or: [ex tag first hasSender: aContext])]])
> > ifTrue:
> > [self labelString: ex tag second description.
> > ex resume]
> > ifFalse:
> > - [ex pass]]
> > + [ex pass]]
> > + on: SimulationSideEffectWarning
> > + do: [:ex |
> > + ex isControlPrimitive ifTrue: [ex unsuppress].
> > + ex primitive = 87 "primitiveResume" ifTrue:
> > + [| process |
> > + process := ex theReceiver.
> > + (Project uiManager
> > + chooseFromLabeledValues: (OrderedDictionary new
> > + at: 'Continue and resume (default)' translated put: [ex resume];
> > + at: 'Debug the new process' translated put: [process debug. ex skipPrimitive];
> > + yourself)
> > + title: ('The process you are debugging is starting or resuming another process:\\ {1}\\Would you like to debug the new process?' withCRs translated asText format: {process printString asText
> > + allBold;
> > + addAttribute: (TextInspectIt on: process);
> > + yourself})) value].
> > + ex pass]
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk<https://github.com/hpi-swa-lab/squeak-inbox-talk>
> >
> > On 2022-02-06T19:44:24+01:00, christoph.thiede(a)student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I would be cautious with adding such a feature since it would be likely to overflow you with redundant debuggers when you are stepping "through" some very complex operation. Still, I see your need for such a feature and thank this might be a nice extra feature, maybe as an opt-in or when combined with some clever heuristics.
> > >
> > > On the implementation side, detecting the resumption of a process during simulating is pretty easy. See SimulationSideEffectWarning [1] which prepares the simulator for reacting to these events conveniently from the debugger. Maybe I should revise and merge this one soon. :-)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Christoph
> > >
> > > [1] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2021-May/215469.html
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Sent from Squeak Inbox Talk
> > >
> > > On 2022-01-22T19:48:24-06:00, asqueaker at gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Dear Squeakers,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was just asking myself, why we cannot debug process forking like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > 0. In the Debugger: [ self doSomething ] "--> next send" fork. nextStatement.
> > > > > 1. Press the Through button.
> > > > > 2. The debugger stops at the next step after the send of #fork: [ self
> > > > > doSomething ] fork. "-->" nextStatement.
> > > > > 3. A second full debugger opens on the new (and now suspended)
> > > > > process: [ self "-->" doSomething ] fork. nextStatement.
> > > >
> > > > I would love that!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >