Travis E. Oliphant wrote: > Robert Kern wrote: >> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Travis E. Oliphant >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Besides, having a "test-per-checkin" is not the proper mapping in my >>> mind. I'd rather see whole check-ins devoted to testing large pieces >>> of code rather than spend all unit-test foo on a rigid policy of >>> "regression" testing each check-in. >>> >> Stéfan is proposing "test-per-bugfix", not "test-per-checkin". That is >> eminently feasible. You need to do some kind of testing to be sure >> that you actually fixed the problem. It is simply *not* *that* *hard* >> to write that in unit test form. >> > That is not true. You *don't* need to do testing to be sure you > actually fixed the problem in some cases.... Looking at the code is > enough. Like the case we are talking about.
I agree that this one was pretty obvious, and the value of a dedicated test is questionable, but I added a test patch and data file to the ticket anyway. Of course the test needed to be tested, and I have done half of that: I verified that it passes now (although some others don't). I had already done this manually to verify my original suggested patch, and then again to verify Travis's actual revision as soon as I saw it. I have not gone back to verify that the test correctly identifies the original problem; but it is the same procedure I used to track the problem down in the first place. I hope this leaves the various hackles reasonably smooth. One last question for Travis: Is there a reason why PyArray_EquivTypes is *not* used in PyArray_CastToType? If so, a comment in the code might be helpful. Eric _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion