Robert Bradshaw, 03.11.2010 08:26:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>> On 2 November 2010 11:49, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> Robert Bradshaw, 01.11.2010 21:44:
>>>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>>>> One problem I spotted was the auto test dict (again).
>>>>>
>>>>> I simplified it now to use the compile time docstrings directly, instead
>>>>> of
>>>>> looking them up at runtime. I don't think this breaks anything important,
>>>>> as the docstrings of functions and methods cannot be modified anyway. On
>>>>> the plus side, it removes a *ton* of ugly C code, and also saves some time
>>>>> during module initialisation.
>>>>
>>>> Excellent! I've been wanting to do this myself, eventually when I
>>>> found the time. This means that cdef methods could have tested
>>>> docstrings as well (though, of course, they couldn't be called
>>>> directly).
>>>
>>> That was easy to implement, so I tried it. In lxml.etree, it adds some 10KB
>>> to the size of the module source code as the docstrings of cdef functions
>>> wouldn't otherwise end up there. Personally, I'm not sure it's worth it. If
>>> you can't call a cdef function/method from a doctest directly, why not just
>>> move the doctest itself to the function or method that you would have to
>>> call anyway?
>>
>> I agree with Stefan.
>
> Sometimes I have a doctest in, e.g., a class body docstring to
> (indirectly) test a cdef method.
Hmm, but putting that doctest into the cdef method's docstring would still
test it through the class, i.e. it would test the interface of the class,
not just the cdef method.
I think this is really just a minor issue.
> On this note,
> would it be easy/feasible to only insert docstrings that actually have
> tests in them?
I thought about that, too. You could easily check for ">>> " being in the
text, that would pretty clearly hint towards a doctest. However, leaving
everything else out means that it's impossible to run non-doctest based
docstring tests, e.g. by just putting some kind of test data into the
docstrings.
What about restricting it to docstrings containing ">>> " by default and
adding another directive like "autotestdict.all" to include all docstrings?
Maybe also "autotestdict.cdef" to include matching cdef function/method
docstrings in addition to the matching Python functions?
autotestdict (default) < autotestdict.cdef < autotestdict.all
I think that would basically cover all use cases, including the less common
ones.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Cython-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
