Re: The Inbox: MethodMassage-dtl.73.mcz

A question regarding 
BytecodeCoverageTests>>testCoverageOfTestBasicBlockLabelsForMethod - is 
this a test that we actually expect to work? By my reading, it is 
attempting to assert that a method that has been modified by 
ByteCodeCoverer>>coverMethod: will be clever enough to fix itself if 
someone tries to evaluate the modified method. It would be nice if that 
worked, but this a realistic scenario that needs to be implemented? We 
already have ByteCodeCoverer>>uncoverMethod: which does the expected 
thing. I am asking because testCoverageOfTestBasicBlockLabelsForMethod 
is not easy to understand, and if it is testing something that we do not 
really expect to work. then maybe we should get rid of the test?

Dave

On 2026-05-23 22:24, [email protected] wrote:

> David T. Lewis uploaded a new version of MethodMassage to project The 
> Inbox:
> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/MethodMassage-dtl.73.mcz
> 
> ==================== Summary ====================
> 
> Name: MethodMassage-dtl.73
> Author: dtl
> Time: 23 May 2026, 6:24:40.21969 pm
> UUID: 3148219f-bb82-4666-9fd7-5c6d6e727ef1
> Ancestors: MethodMassage-dtl.72
> 
> Make BytecodeCoverageTests>>expectedFailures do the right thing for 
> EncoderForV3PlusClosures
> The #expectedFailures for BytecodeCoverageTests appears first in 
> MethodMassage-eem.58 but was mistakenly implemented on the class side 
> and later moved to instance side in MethodMassage-ct.69, which now 
> results in an expected failure for 
> #testCoverageOfTestBasicBlockLabelsForMethod for the test running with 
> EncoderForSistaV1, and a not expected failure for 
> EncoderForV3PlusClosures. The test fails with either encoder, so just 
> mark it as an expected failure.
> 
> =============== Diff against MethodMassage-dtl.72 ===============
> 
> Item was changed:
> ----- Method: BytecodeCoverageTests>>expectedFailures (in category 
> 'failures') -----
> expectedFailures
> "Alas this class's single test only passes if there are methods in the 
> MethodMassage package that are compiled without full blocks."
> +
> -     self thisPackage actualMethodsDo:
> -         [:m|
> -         m isQuick ifFalse:
> -             [m encoderClass supportsFullBlocks ifFalse:
> -                 [^#()]]].
> ^#(testCoverageOfTestBasicBlockLabelsForMethod)!
> 
> Squeak-dev mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to 
> [email protected]

Squeak-dev mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]