On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:25 AM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:14 AM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Charles R Harris >>> <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Might be nice to print out the actual values of np.spacing and np.nextafter >>>> here. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, I should add some utilities to print those for this kind of test. >>> But in this case, I know the problem: mingw gcc use 80 bits long >>> double but it uses the MS runtime which considers double and long >>> double to be the same (8 bytes). >>> >>> I think the real fix is to force npy_longdouble to be double on mingw, >>> but I don't want to make that change now for 1.4.0. >> >> adding the failing type in the test to the failure message would also >> be helpful > > Yes, you're right. I also used the nose facility for using generators > for complex corner cases, but with retrospect, it is not so useful, > because you don't get a name when you have a failure (or maybe I am > using it wrong).
I don't know what the policy for the use of assert in numpy is, but if you use the function np.testing.assert_ then you can add a failure message with eg. repr(t) With "yield check_a_function arguments" nose prints the arguments in the test description, putting information into the arguments gets then displayed. This is also useful for arguments that the check function doesn't really need. Josef > > David > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
