StéphaneDucasse

Yes!

Yes this is better.

Oops we have some tests based on this bad behavior. For example Got 1.234 instead of 1. Stacktrace TestFailure Got 1.234 instead of 1. CommentTestCase(TestAsserter)>>assert:description:resumable: CommentTestCase(TestAsserter)>>assert:description: CommentTestCase(TestAsserter)>>assert:equals: CommentTestCase>>testIt CommentTestCase(TestCase)>>performTest

``` [osx-64 / Tests-osx-64 / MacOSX64.PharoDocComment.Tests.CommentTestCase.nil](https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/PR-17918/1/testReport/junit/MacOSX64.PharoDocComment.Tests/CommentTestCase/osx_64___Tests_osx_64___nil/) [osx-64 / Tests-osx-64 / MacOSX64.Reflectivity.Tests.ReflectivityOnStackTest.testExecuteWithWaitingWithLinkInstalledAfterExecutionOfMethodInInlinedBlockChangeMethodManually](https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/PR-17918/1/testReport/junit/MacOSX64.Reflectivity.Tests/ReflectivityOnStackTest/osx_64___Tests_osx_64___testExecuteWithWaitingWithLinkInstalledAfterExecutionOfMethodInInlinedBlockChangeMethodManually/) [osx-64 / Tests-osx-64 / MacOSX64.SUnit.Tests.ProcessMonitorTestServiceTest.testFailTestWhenBackgroundProcessWasFailedDuringFinalTryToFinishItAtTestCompletionTime](https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/PR-17918/1/testReport/junit/MacOSX64.SUnit.Tests/ProcessMonitorTestServiceTest/osx_64___Tests_osx_64___testFailTestWhenBackgroundProcessWasFailedDuringFinalTryToFinishItAtTestCompletionTime/) [osx-64 / Tests-osx-64 / MacOSX64.System.Time.Tests.DurationTest.testReadFromNoException](https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%20and%20branch%20Pipeline/job/PR-17918/1/testReport/junit/MacOSX64.System.Time.Tests/DurationTest/osx_64___Tests_osx_64___testReadFromNoException/) ```

Yes we should then add a test.

in fact nested codeblock was not working at all because for environment we were removing the tabs but for all the elements and it was a mistake. It is the...

Thanks I will have a look. Would be good to have tests and getXXX is not that idiomatic of Pharo. I will have a look.

I know that the existing code is using this getX stuff.

I checked and it looks ok for now. So I will integrate it.

Thanks Koen for the analysis and the fix!