[Cuis-dev] Browser class hierarchy & functionality

Wed Dec 11 23:27:17 PST 2019

OK, I think this version addresses the items from the previous version[1]
and your feedback.  There were about half a dozen methods with breaking
changes (i.e. either needed to be redefined or renamed) to align
CodeFileBrowser->SystemDictionary and PseudoClass->ClassDescription but I
didn't see any obvious users of them other than CodeFileBrowser so I don't
think this impacts anything else.

[1] The one exception was item 2... this can't be 'fixed' without doing a
rather convoluted 3-way diff with the image which may, or may not, make
sense depending on what you're looking at.  So for now at least, I'm
leaving it as is.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 2:59 PM Phil B <pbpublist at gmail.com> wrote:

> Juan,
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019, 9:57 AM Juan Vuletich <juan at jvuletich.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> I really like what you are doing here.
>>
>
> Thanks... it's taken a couple attempts to get something that didn't turn
> into a mess
>
>
>> However there is one detail I think can be improved. You call the stuff
>> that can be compared 'target' and 'source'. The problem is that 'source'
>> means 'source code' in many places and this could be confusing. Besides,
>> 'target' doesn't obviously mean 'the reference we are comparing against'.
>> DifferenceFinder calls them 'base' and 'case'. This sounds clearer to me.
>> Or may be there are better names to be found.
>>
>
> I wasn't wild about the naming either.  So baseCodeSource and
> caseCodeSource?  (I'm not crazy about the CodeSource part of the name
> either but wanted to come up with a convention that would hint at how
> future implementations/interfaces might be named)
>
> Also, are you OK with the conditional logic on the menu items?  I wanted
> to check on this before doing something similar with the button bar (i.e.
> when an image isn't the target/base (or is it case?) most of the items
> should probably be disabled)
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Juan Vuletichwww.cuis-smalltalk.orghttps://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Devhttps://github.com/jvuletichhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3
>> @JuanVuletich
>>
>>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
>
>>
>> On 12/5/2019 6:34 AM, Phil B wrote:
>>
>> I finally had some time to work on this and got something working.  I
>> wanted to throw it out there for feedback before going any further with it
>> as there are a few outstanding issues.
>>
>> What this changeset should allow for is any pairing of Smalltalk
>> image/changeset/package in a CodeFileBrowserWindow (though most of the
>> changes are actually in CodeFileBrowser)  By default, you can still open a
>> browser window from a FileListWindow as always.  But now when you want a
>> non-standard browser you can 'CodeFileBrowser browseCodeSource:
>> (CodePackageFile newFromFile: someFileEntry) target: (CodePackageFile
>> newFromFile: someOtherFileEntry)' (you can also either leave one of the
>> arguments as nil or pass Smalltalk to use the image as your
>> source/target... see 3 below)  You should also be able to add arbitrary
>> other code sources (i.e. remote images as sources/targets are a
>> possibility) as well.
>>
>> Here are a few notes on where things stand:
>>
>> 1) One of the things that I ran into doing this that I really liked was
>> disabling the 'false color' diff formatting of the browser so I made this
>> an optional flag.  This is handy when you're looking at a piece of code and
>> want to see missing methods/classes in the image.  It's far from perfect
>> (i.e. it is very dumb as methods defined in the source aren't taken into
>> account), but I still find it handy and if it makes sense this could be
>> made a UI toggle.
>>
>> 2) Related to 1 is that the existing diffing code doesn't know what to do
>> in non-standard configurations (i.e. when target is not the Smalltalk
>> image) so view as source always appears to be running with 'false color'
>> off (this is a bug)
>>
>> 3) Currently the image can only be a target (work in progress)
>>
>> 4) There was one breaking method change:  PseudoClass>>includesSelector:
>> so if I've missed any senders that depend on the old behavior (I only saw
>> one obvious one) they will need minor changes.
>>
>> 5) Pane menus are a bit more complex since some of the options don't make
>> sense if either the image isn't the target or a changeset/package isn't the
>> source.
>>
>> 6) Related to 5, the button pane needs conditional work (still thinking
>> about how to best deal with this)
>>
>> So what do you think?  Anything obvious I missed?
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 2:50 PM Phil B <pbpublist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Juan,
>>>
>>> OK, that's basically what I was thinking.   I just wanted to see if you
>>> were open to it first since it will require some rework (I'm not currently
>>> thinking a rewrite is in order... we'll see) of the existing model
>>> classes.  I'll start with the model and if the direction makes sense then
>>> can enhance the views to expose the functionality.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 1:35 PM Juan Vuletich <juan at jvuletich.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/29/2019 2:17 PM, Phil B via Cuis-dev wrote:
>>>> > I was looking into adding the ability to easily analyze/diff two
>>>> > sources of Smalltalk code (i.e. basically the same image vs.
>>>> changeset
>>>> > or image vs. package functionality we currently have but expanding
>>>> the
>>>> > capability to allow for any two arbitrary sources whether changesets
>>>> > vs. changeset, package vs. package, package vs. changeset or some
>>>> > other pairing entirely) and it seems a bit harder than it needs to be
>>>> > since the existing implementation assumes you will always be
>>>> comparing
>>>> > the image vs. something else.
>>>> >
>>>> > If this already exists and I'm looking in the wrong place, pointers
>>>> > are appreciated.  If it doesn't, would there be any objection to
>>>> > modifying/cleaning up this code so that we could optionally set an
>>>> > 'other' Code*Browser that would be used rather than always assuming
>>>> > the image?  A related enhancement could be to make the Code*Browser
>>>> > code a bit smarter so that we don't need to explicitly determine if
>>>> > 'this is a package' or 'this is a changeset' unless you want to.
>>>> > Basically I'm asking if we would be willing to trade a (slight)
>>>> > increase in implementation complexity for increased code source
>>>> > flexibility here?
>>>>
>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>
>>>> What you want is not yet done. I think it is a good idea. I suggest
>>>> writing new (or improving existing) Model classes, for code already
>>>> loaded in the image (in base image or in packages), and for code in
>>>> files (CodePackageFile, etc). Ideally, the same View classes (i.e. the
>>>> Morphic Windows) should be the same and work on whatever model. Models
>>>> should be polymorphic enough so that comparing works irrespectively of
>>>> the models involved.
>>>>
>>>> This could be a nice improvement for the system.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Juan Vuletich
>>>> www.cuis-smalltalk.org
>>>> https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev
>>>> https://github.com/jvuletich
>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3
>>>> @JuanVuletich
>>>>
>>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cuis.st/mailman/archives/cuis-dev/attachments/20191212/d70459ab/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3961-CodeFileBrowser-flexible-case-and-base-PhilBellalouna-2019Dec11-23h00m-pb.1.cs.st
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 31676 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cuis.st/mailman/archives/cuis-dev/attachments/20191212/d70459ab/attachment-0001.obj>