2009/6/9 William Stein <wst...@gmail.com>:
>
> 2009/6/8 Nicolas M. Thiery <nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr>:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 10:32:34AM -0700, William Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:35 AM, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> > Come on, guys; is it really so hard to run "sage -docbuild reference
>>> >> > html" and check the output before you submit (or give a positive
>>> >> > review to) a patch?
>>> >>
>>> >> > \end{grumble}
>>> >>
>>> >> I've added this to the patch review guidelines:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://wiki.sagemath.org/TracGuidelines#ReviewingPatches
>>> >
>>> > Though I'll point out, for the sake of argument, that some of us have
>>> > such underpowered computers that even running full doctests is not
>>> > practical (i.e. everything times out),
>>>
>>> There's interest in creating a function in Sage that will apply the
>>> patches from a given trac ticket, run all tests, verify that the docs
>>> don't break, and report the result. The idea is that this will be
>>> done 100% automatically on the high-powered sage.math box. The script
>>> would also verify that every function touched by the patch has a
>>> doctest. Then essentially all of the guidelines:
>>>
>>> # 100% Doctests: All new code must be 100% doctested. There is no way
>>> around this.
>>> # Test the reference manual: sage -docbuild reference html must
>>> produce no errors
>>> # Test the Sage library: make test or make ptest (edit number of
>>> threads in makefile before using ptest!)
>>>
>>> would be verified completely automatically. Your task as a reviewer
>>> would only come after the script signs off that the above conditions
>>> are met.
>>
>> +1 !!!
>>
>> Dream feature: having a button on the trac ticket web page that would
>> run this script on sage.math (don't know if this is easily doable though).
>
> I would envision that I would setup an always-running script on
> sage.math that would simply monitor trac and whenever a ticket changes
> to "[with patch; needs review]" it would notice, automatically do all
> of the above, and if anything fails it would change the ticket to
> "[with patch; needs work]", and post a comment listing failures (and
> maybe a hyperlink to a long report). If everything passes, it would
> change the header to "[with patch; needs human review]".
>
That would work i nmost cases -- though not when one patch depends on
another (on another ticket), or when the ticket has a sequence of
patches with "human" annotations such as "replaces previous", "apply
after the first patch", and so on....
Still worth doing though.
John
> -- William
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
