On 06/30/2017 03:04 PM, CJ Carey wrote: > Is it feasible/desirable to provide a doctest runner that ignores > whitespace? That would allow downstream projects to fix their doctests on > 1.14+ with a one-line change, without breaking tests on 1.13.
Good idea. I have already implemented this actually, see the updated PR. https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/9139/ Whether or not the sign position is padded can now be controlled by setting >>> np.set_printoptions(pad_sign=True) >>> np.set_printoptions(pad_sign=False) When pad_sign is True, it gives the old behavior, except for size-1 arrays where it still omits the sign position. (Maybe I should limit it even more, to 0d arrays?) When pad_sign is False (currently default in the PR), it removes the sign padding everywhere if possible. Allan > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Allan Haldane <allanhald...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 06/30/2017 03:55 AM, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: >> >>> To reiterate my point on a previous thread, I don't think this should >>> happen until NumPy 2.0. This *will* break a massive number of doctests, and >>> what's worse, it will do so in a way that makes it difficult to support >>> doctesting for both 1.13 and 1.14. I don't see a big enough benefit to >>> these changes to justify breaking everyone's tests before an API-breaking >>> version bump. >>> >> >> I am still on the fence about exactly how annoying this change would be, >> and it is is good to hear whether this affects you and how badly. >> >> Yes, someone would have to spend an hour removing a hundred spaces in >> doctests, and the 1.13 to 1.14 period is trickier (but virtualenv helps). >> But none of your end users are going to have their scripts break, there are >> no new warnings or exceptions. >> >> A followup questions is, to what degree can we compromise? Would it be >> acceptable to skip the big change #1, but keep the other 3 changes? I >> expect they affect far fewer doctests. Or, for instance, I could scale back >> #1 so it only affects size-1 (or perhaps, only size-0) arrays. What amount >> of change would be OK, and how is changing a small number of doctests >> different from changing more? >> >> Also, let me clarify the motivations for the changes. As Marten noted, >> change #2 is what motivated all the other changes. Currently 0d arrays >> print in their own special way which was making it very hard to implement >> fixes to voidtype str/repr, and the datetime and other 0d reprs are weird. >> The fix is to make 0d arrays print using the same code-path as higher-d >> ndarrays, but then we ended up with reprs like "array( 1.)" because of the >> space for the sign position. So I removed the space from the sign position >> for all float arrays. But as I noted I probably could remove it for only >> size-1 or 0d arrays and still fix my problem, even though I think it might >> be pretty hacky to implement in the numpy code. >> >> Allan >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 30 Jun 2017, 6:42 AM +1000, Marten van Kerkwijk < >>> m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com>, wrote: >>> >>>> To add to Allan's message: point (2), the printing of 0-d arrays, is >>>> the one that is the most important in the sense that it rectifies a >>>> really strange situation, where the printing cannot be logically >>>> controlled by the same mechanism that controls >=1-d arrays (see PR). >>>> >>>> While point 3 can also be considered a bug fix, 1 & 4 are at some >>>> level matters of taste; my own reason for supporting their >>>> implementation now is that the 0-d arrays already forces me (or, >>>> specifically, astropy) to rewrite quite a few doctests, and I'd rather >>>> have everything in one go -- in this respect, it is a pity that this >>>> is separate from the earlier change in printing for structured arrays >>>> (which was also much for the better, but broke a lot of doctests). >>>> >>>> -- Marten >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Allan Haldane <allanhald...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> There are various updates to array printing in preparation for numpy >>>>> 1.14. See https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/9139/ >>>>> >>>>> Some are quite likely to break other projects' doc-tests which expect a >>>>> particular str or repr of arrays, so I'd like to warn the list in case >>>>> anyone has opinions. >>>>> >>>>> The current proposed changes, from most to least painful by my >>>>> reckoning, are: >>>>> >>>>> 1. >>>>> For float arrays, an extra space previously used for the sign position >>>>> will now be omitted in many cases. Eg, `repr(arange(4.))` will now >>>>> return 'array([0., 1., 2., 3.])' instead of 'array([ 0., 1., 2., 3.])'. >>>>> >>>>> 2. >>>>> The printing of 0d arrays is overhauled. This is a bit finicky to >>>>> describe, please see the release note in the PR. As an example of the >>>>> effect of this, the `repr(np.array(0.))` now prints as 'array(0.)` >>>>> instead of 'array(0.0)'. Also the repr of 0d datetime arrays is now like >>>>> "array('2005-04-04', dtype='datetime64[D]')" instead of >>>>> "array(datetime.date(2005, 4, 4), dtype='datetime64[D]')". >>>>> >>>>> 3. >>>>> User-defined dtypes which did not properly implement their `repr` (and >>>>> `str`) should do so now. Otherwise it now falls back to >>>>> `object.__repr__`, which will return something ugly like >>>>> `<mytype object at 0x7f37f1b4e918>`. (Previously you could depend on >>>>> only implementing the `item` method and the repr of that would be >>>>> printed. But no longer, because this risks infinite recursions.). >>>>> >>>>> 4. >>>>> Bool arrays of size 1 with a 'True' value will now omit a space, so that >>>>> `repr(array([True]))` is now 'array([True])' instead of >>>>> 'array([ True])'. >>>>> >>>>> Allan >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >>>>> NumPy-Discussion@python.org >>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >>>> NumPy-Discussion@python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >>> NumPy-Discussion@python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >> NumPy-Discussion@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
