"- Installed SARInstaller (since the RB did not appear as installable until I did so, only appeared as downloadable)"

Aha!! I couldn't figure out at first why RB didn't even show up on the SM Package Loader. After a while, I noticed that it (and a dozen or so other packages) showed up if I unchecked the 'display only auto-installable packages'. But I never did figure out how to install it.

Note to SqueakMap maintainer: I know that SqueakMap is coming together quickly, but a new release that included the SARInstaller by default might be nice and would avoid future confusion along these lines.

david

At 03:46 PM 11/4/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>danielv at netvision.net.il wrote:
>> 
>> Now on SM.
>> I'd appreciate it if someone ran the test suite, so I'm sure the new
>> packaging is working. I've just found message complaining about these
>> darn three files from almost a year ago, so I'm hoping this long
>> standing problem is now fixed permanently.
>
>Daniel,
>
>Testing Report
>
>- Fresh 3.2 image #4956 for Win32, on an NT 4.0 box.
>- Installed SqueakMap using the simple script from the SqueakMap page at
>http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/2726
>- Installed SARInstaller (since the RB did not appear as installable
>until I did so, only appeared as downloadable)
>- Installed the RB
>- Installed Ned Konz's TestRunnerEnh ( can't stand running long tests
>without it )
>- "TestRunner open" in a workspace
>- Refresh then Run All
>- Take a walk
>
>Results:
>585 run, 583 passed, 2 failed, 0 errors
>Failures:
>	AllTestSelectorsFixTest>>testAllTestSelectors
>	TestUUIDPrimitives>>testCreationNodeBased
>
>Analysis:
>	The AllTestSelectorsFixTest>>testAllTestSelectors is a failure due to
>something I've seen and commented on privately before.  This is the
>"infamous" Object>>testing  method that gets added to Object in the
>Refactory-RBAddonsReasonable category.  With this selector included a
>test looking for 2 method names beginning with "test*" becomes 3 and so
>fails.
>
>   My second failure is not regarding an RB test, so you may not be
>interested.
>
>   The TestUUIDPrimitives>>testCreationNodeBased failure is due to a
>problem that I've seen before and commented on to John McIntosh since he
>appears to have added it to the image.  I somehow get a different result
>than John had expected for his test.  It looks valid but doesn't match
>his expected pattern.
>
>Overall, great work!  I'm going to try and be more helpful if I can find
>the time.  I still believe that the RB work is extremely important to
>the Squeak community.
>
>Steve Gilbert
>
>
--
David Farber
dfarber at numenor.com