> On Jul 2, 2022, at 2:13 PM, Jaromir Matas <mail at jaromir.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Eliot, Marcel, all
>  
> > This sounds right to me.  The important things would be 
> - is the activeProcess (in which the exception occurs) the UI process?  If so don’t create a new UI process.
> - is the UI process blocked temporarily or long-term?  I’m guessing there are delays in the UI process’s stepping/rendering so some simple test for blocking might assume the UI process was blocked while in fact it was just pausing.
>  
> Yes, I realize the UI may be in a blocked state most of the time because of the intercycle pause which is not the case we need to isolate; so yes, we need some more clever test than simple #isBlocked.
>  
> Another thing is that the blocked UI will/may eventually (when signaled) become active again so if we create a new UI to deal with a subsequent error (i.e. a request to open a debugger) then this new UI should really be just “temporary” and should be closed when the original UI becomes active again; and this is at the moment way beyond my skills; I’m not even sure this is the right approach :)
>  
> > But I really *don’t* know what I’m talking about here.  I would talk it over with Marcel; he’s much more familiar with the code and co-located.
>  
> That would be a great help indeed :))
>  
> Can I assume we can agree that it would be nice and reasonable if this motivation example opened the ZeroDivide without freezing the UI ?
>  
> s := Semaphore new.
> [1/0. s signal] fork.
> s wait

Yes, at least I can.  It’s a bad thing when errors in background processes don’t show up (although there is a potential issue with a flood of such events).  It’s far worse when such events cause the UI to lock up.  It would be great if the debugger clearly identified an error in a named background process (such as the finalization process) since simply closing the debugger leaves the image in a bad state.

>  
> Thanks!
>  
> --
> Jaromír Matas
> mail at jaromir.net
>  
> From: Eliot Miranda
> Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2022 19:23
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Freezing UI issue
>  
> Hi Jaromir,
> 
> 
> On Jul 1, 2022, at 2:43 AM, Jaromir Matas <mail at jaromir.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi All,
>  
> I'd like to ask you to help me understand this: If you run the following example in the Workspace, the UI will freeze (Alt + . recoverable indeed)
>  
> s := Semaphore new.
> [1/0. s signal] fork.
> s wait
>  
> The reason is obvious - the example runs inside the UI and hence the UI will start waiting on the semaphore s. At the same time the newly forked process will try to evaluate 1/0 and will request the UI to open a debugger but this won't happen because the UI is waiting on a semaphore.
>  
> Now the question: Why the system won't start the debugger in a new UI? There's no 'fundamental' reason why the UI should get stuck on a semaphore instead of taking care of the new error that occurred elsewhere in the meantime. Look at  #spawnNewProcessIfThisIsUI: : the method tries to make sure there's a running UI so that a new debugger can be opened in case the UI is missing or is suspended. It feels like the situation where the UI *is blocked* has been left off - and I can't figure out whether by omission or intentionally.
>  
> I've tried to modify it like this:
>  
> spawnNewProcessIfThisIsUI: suspendedProcess
>                 "Initialize a UI process if needed. Answer true if suspendedProcess was interrupted
>                 from a UI process."
>                 self uiProcess == suspendedProcess ifTrue: [
>                                 self spawnNewProcess.
>                                 ^true
>                 ].
>  
>                 "Ensure that the UI process is running."
>                 self uiProcess
>                                 ifNil: [self spawnNewProcess]
>                                 ifNotNil: [:p | (p isSuspended or: [p isBlocked]) ifTrue: [     "<------- here's my change... or: [p isBlocked]"
>                                                 self restoreDisplay.
>                                                 self uiProcess resume]].
>  
>                 ^false                    "no new process was created"
>  
> ... and the example above no longer blocks the UI !
>  
> I'm not saying this is a fix (I don't have any debugger/UI experience to fix it correctly); I'm just trying to demonstrate the functionality I'd like to achieve :) A real fix should maybe open a new UI instead of unblocking the existing one, I don't know…
>  
> This sounds right to me.  The important things would be 
> - is the activeProcess (in which the exception occurs) the UI process?  If so don’t create a new UI process.
> - is the UI process blocked temporarily or long-term?  I’m guessing there are delays in the UI process’s stepping/rendering so some simple test for blocking might assume the UI process was blocked while in fact it was just pausing.
>  
> But I really *don’t* know what I’m talking about here.  I would talk it over with Marcel; he’s much more familiar with the code and co-located.
>  
> 
>  
> Thanks very much for any input on this.
> best,
> Jaromir
>  
> --
> Jaromír Matas
> mail at jaromir.net
>  
>  
>  
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20220702/f6e56225/attachment.html>