David Cournapeau wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Christopher Hanley <chan...@stsci.edu> wrote: >> David Cournapeau wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Christopher Hanley <chan...@stsci.edu> >>> wrote: >>>> David Cournapeau wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Christopher Hanley <chan...@stsci.edu> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've committed the following change to test_print.py to fix one of the >>>>>> tests. >>>>>> >>>>> Hi Christopher, >>>>> >>>>> Please do not modify those tests - they are supposed to fail, >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Numpy-discussion mailing list >>>>> Numpy-discussion@scipy.org >>>>> http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >>>> Hi David, >>>> >>>> Sorry. Should these tests be generating a "known failures" then? >>> No. The problem are known, and are being fixed (in a branch). Since >>> the problem is only in the development trunk, I don't see any problem >>> with having failures for some time, >>> >>> David >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Numpy-discussion mailing list >>> Numpy-discussion@scipy.org >>> http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >> I would disagree. If you were to attempt the following: >> >> n = numpy.test() >> n.wasSuccessful() >> >> You expect the result to be 'True'. If not it is necessary to find out >> why. Right now the following occurs: >> >> >>> n.wasSuccessful() >> False >> >> I have no way of knowing that you wanted those tests to fail unless you >> have them marked as KNOWNFAIL. Since we use numpy in our production >> systems I need to determine why numpy is failing. We track the changes >> on the trunk because we need to know how changes will effect our code >> prior to our customers downloading the latest numpy release. > > I don't understand: you can't expect the trunk to always work. We try > not to break it - but sometimes it does not work. > > Personally, I don't like knownfailure much anyway: I feel like it is > too easy to tag one test known failure, and then nobody cares about it > anymore. Those formatting problems were already problems before - the > tests only show the problem, it does not cause the problem, so I don't > understand why it is so important: a 100 % running test suite with a > problem which is not shown or a 95 % running test suite with the > problem is the same thing; the code in numpy itself is exactly the > same. > > David > _______________________________________________ > Numpy-discussion mailing list > Numpy-discussion@scipy.org > http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
I do not expect the trunk to always work. I even expect it to have bugs. However, I do not expect there to be test failures for known reasons that result in wasSuccessful() returning false. This is a bad programming practice. It creates work for people trying to figure out what is wrong when the answer is already know. Chris -- Christopher Hanley Senior Systems Software Engineer Space Telescope Science Institute 3700 San Martin Drive Baltimore MD, 21218 (410) 338-4338 _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion