[squeak-dev] FileSystem

Frank Shearar frank.shearar at gmail.com
Tue May 28 09:06:09 UTC 2013


Hi Casey,

It looks like FileDirectory has 26% methods covered, which honestly is
higher than I'd expected. It looks like FileSystem has 80% code
coverage.

"Looks like" because FSFilesystemTest class >> #packageNamesUnderTest
returns #('Filesystem') which seems to make TestRunner think there's
nothing to cover. Hacking that to return #('FS') and adding an 'FS'
package to the image (so that one package "captures" all the FS-*
packages) seems to fix the problem.

frank

On 25 May 2013 23:51, Casey Ransberger <casey.obrien.r at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> Can you tell me which one has better SUnit coverage? (I'm on a phone.)
>
> If FileSystem doesn't have just some enormous complexity, if the code is at least as good (however we're going to be measuring that) and there are good tests, I can't think of any reason we shouldn't do what the hipsters are doing, except of course the work involved.
>
> <ironic type="hipster">mustache</ironic>
>
> On May 24, 2013, at 1:58 AM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So Metacello is being forced, along with many other packages, to
>> re-implement a compatibility layer because Squeak uses FileDirectory
>> and Pharo uses FileSystem.
>>
>> Now I completely understand that Pharo's understanding of
>> FileDirectory is about 5 years out of date. By now, countless
>> arguments on pharo-dev have shown that the two packages are roughly
>> isomorphic in functionality and API.
>>
>> Camillo Bruni's even shown this by implementing a shim exposing a
>> FIleDirectory API on top of FileSystem to ease migration of early
>> Pharo projects to later versions of Pharo.
>>
>> So I have a pair of questions:
>> * how far have wiresong's FileSystem and Pharo's FileSystem diverged?
>> (And how do we bring the two back together again, if necessary?)
>> * How do we fix the problem?
>>
>> Pharo has nearly emptied the open source Smalltalk room of oxygen, so
>> there's an argument for saying that FileSystem has won and we should
>> use it. If we did move to FileSystem we _would_ want to keep Cami's
>> shim, because we care about backwards compatibility a whole lot more
>> than Pharo. And of course there's Cuis to consider.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> (Note: please _don't_ talk about the spilt more than absolutely
>> necessary. It's done, it can't be undone, and we should concentrate
>> our energies on moving Squeak forward, and minimising pain for those
>> brave souls who try keep their packages cross platform.)
>>
>> frank
>>
>


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list