On 21 Jun., 15:37, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/6/21 gsw <georgswe...@googlemail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21 Jun., 08:28, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote:
> >> Dear all,
>
> >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/5343...
> >> I was asking about the apparently changed behaviour of "sage -t".
> >> Georg suggested to move the discussion to sage-devel, so, here it
> >> is...
>
> >> On 20 Jun., 22:10, gsw <georgswe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On 20 Jun., 08:15, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote:
> >> > > Apparently the difference lies in Sage and not in my tests. I just
> >> > > tried again the exact setting in which testing my extension modules
> >> > > used to work -- now it fails, since "sage -t mtx.pyx" tries to compile
> >> > > mtx.pyx for whatever reason.
> >> > ...
> >> > If I understand it correctly, the doctesting mechanism was changed, to
> >> > be part of (or to make use of) the "load/attach" mechanism of Sage ---
> >> > so if you can successfully "load" foobar.pyx into Sage, you also
> >> > should be able to doctest it, with current Sage versions. But for most
> >> > stuff which is greater than one file, the current behaviour is worse
> >> > than it was before and is a regression IMHO.
>
> >> I agree. Source code is one thing, an importable module is a
> >> completely different thing.
>
> >> Moreover: *Why* would one like to use load/attach for doc testing? I
> >> mean, imaging a big chunk of code (in my case some 10,000 lines of
> >> code); why should one compile it just for doing doc tests? In
> >> particular, why *re-*compile it if the compilation of the code has
> >> been done before?
>
> >> > I could make doctesting my code (extension modules) work again in two
> >> > hours or so mainly by inserting some of these infamous "#clib ..."
> >> > "#cinclude ..." poor-man's pragmas I heartily dislike.
>
> >> This does not look like a convenient solution.
>
> >> > > Couldn't "sage -t" just take any text file, search for "sage:" prompts
> >> > > etc, and verify the output?
>
> >> ... as it used to do, IIRC !
>
> >> > I didn't check it, but if you move all your doctests out of a *.pyx
> >> > file into another file --- say a *.py file with the necessary
> >> > "import"s --- then doctesting this new file should work fine.
>
> >> Sure, but it's clumsy.
>
> >> > > Another idea.
>
> >> > > Let "knight" be a (python) package or module. Is there a function
> >> > > (say, recursive_doc_test) in Sage that does the doc tests for "knight"
> >> > > and, recursively, for its contents (functions; classes; methods of
> >> > > these classes; other modules, if knight is a package; ...) and returns
> >> > > the results of the test as a string? I mean
> >> > > sage: import knight
> >> > > sage: recursive_doc_test(knight)
> >> > > 'The following items had faiilures:
> >> > > In knight.Ni.Shrubbery, l. 12:
> >> > > expected:
> >> > > "herring"
> >> > > got:
> >> > > nothing
> >> > > ...'
>
> >> > > The line number would refer to the 12th line in the doc string of the
> >> > > class knight.Ni.Shrubbery, say.
>
> >> I did something like that in sort of a quick hack. Also rather
> >> clumsy:
> >> - Recursively determine everything that is in some package/module/
> >> class/type and retrieve the respective doc strings, so that in the end
> >> you have a dictionary of doc strings indexed by the fully qualified
> >> names of the things (classes, instances, functions, methods,...) they
> >> belong to.
> >> - For each single doc string, create a temporary file F.py. This file
> >> contains the doc string and no code, so that it can certainly be
> >> attached/loaded, and thus doc testing works for F.py.
>
> > The "origonal" doc test module Sage builds upon already does exactly
> > that, IIRC. Remember, if you get doctest failures "...in
> > example_blah..." then this means that the doctest framework had had
> > built and tested one "example" file for each doc string. Also note
> > that the sequence this is done is *not* the sequence the docstrings
> > occur in the source file, but rather the examples are gone through _1,
> > _10, _11, .... _19, _2, _20, _21, _3, _4, _5, .. (if there are less
> > than 30) which already caused funny-to-debug failures. William has
> > introduced an option IIRC with which you can make this sequence random
> > (pseudo-random with a seed, so one might reproduce these sequences),
> > but this is not the main point here.
>
> > The main point is that the "low-level" doc test framework already does
> > exactly what you did with your "sort of quick hack approach", so one
> > "only" needs to re-enable this behaviour in such a way that it works
> > again for 10000-lines external modules as before, but also still works
> > for these new examples which have caused the changes.
>
> > In a ten-minute search I only found the following thread :
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/8da41d...
>
> > where e.g. Jason Grout posted: "+1 on making sage -t my_file.py work
> > with minimal hassle. " but I didn't get closer to who actually changed
> > the doctesting code and when.
> > I haven't done a search on trac yet.
>
> I did at the Sage Days 12 -- bug fix. I did this to fix several
> reported bugs, which making that change did. I guess one person's bug
> is another person's feature.
>
> Anyway, you guys (or whoever) should just make trac tickets and fix stuff.
>
You're right of course. I just currently don't know which trac ticket
to open first ...
Cheers,
gsw
> William
>
> --
> William Stein
> Associate Professor of Mathematics
> University of Washingtonhttp://wstein.org
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
