On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Pauli Virtanen <p...@iki.fi> wrote: > Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris <at> gmail.com> writes: >> After 6 days of trudging through the numpy issues and >> finally passing the half way point, I'm wondering if we >> can set up so that new defects get a small test that can >> be parsed out and run periodically to mark issues that might >> be fixed. I expect it can be done, but might be more trouble >> than it is worth to keep working. > > Github has an API for accessing issue contents. > > curl -i "https://api.github.com/repos/numpy/numpy/issues?state=open"; > > If some markup for test cases is devised, a tool can be written > that detects them. > > Alternatively, one could just add a separate git repository > numpy/bugs.git for bug test cases, containing e.g. files > `gh-1234.py`. Such scripts need to be written anyway at some > point (or copypasted to Python shell). It would also be better > from security POV to use a separate repo for bug test cases. > > This would also solve the issue of how to add attachments > to bug reports in one way.
Seems like more trouble than it's worth to automate. We don't want just anyone with a Github account to add arbitrary code to our test suites, do we? The idea of an "expected failure" test suite is a good one, but it seems to me that it could be maintained by normal PR processes just fine. -- Robert Kern _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
