On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:49:20AM +0200, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Nicolas M.
> Thiery<nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:01:58AM -0400, David Roe wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
> >> <nicolas.thi...@u-psud.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:29:34AM +0200, Franco Saliola wrote:
> >> > > I'm also in favor of _test_X to avoid cluttering up the tab
> >> > > completion. Another option to increase visibility would be to have
> >> a
> >> > > test object, e.g.
> >> > >
> >> > > sage: foo.test.associativity()
> >> > > True
> >> >
> >> > +1. I think it merges the two concerns together nicely (visibility
> >> and
> >> > avoiding clutter).
> >>
> >> Thanks for the feedback! I agree that the syntax looks good.
> >>
> >> But, err, guys, are you telling *me* that you want an attribute here
> >> instead of a method? Or should this be:
> >>
> >> I'm fine with it as a lazy attribute.
> >
> > Taking a good note of that :-)
> >
> >>
> >> foo.test().associativity?
> >>
> >> I also like the clean aspect of separating the test object. But one of
> >> the main point of doing this would be to stick more closely to the
> >> testunit framework. But then that would call for:
> >>
> >> foo.test().test_associativity()
> >>
> >> which is not that nice anymore.
> >>
> >> Some other questions:
> >>
> >> - what syntax do you want to run all tests?
> >>
> >> foo.check()
> >>
> >> foo.test().run()
> >>
> >> foo.test() / foo.test.associativity()
> >>
> >>
> >> foo.test(). The __call__ method on the test object runs the tests (would
> >> this
> >> work with a lazy attribute? Yes, right?)
> >
> > No problem. Well, I actually would just use a property rather than a
> > lazy_attribute, since there is no reason to cache the test object.
> >
> > Do we have a consensus on this?
>
> I am still opposed to adding a non-underscore method to SageObject.
>
> I did like Robert Bradshaw's other suggestion to do something like the
> following.
>
> sage: Test(foo).associativity()
>
> sage: Test?
> [[descript testing framework]]
>
> I.e., just create a Sage class "Test", which gives access to the test
> functionality, documents it, can even do something useful on objects
> foo that aren't necessarily SageObjects at all, etc.
>
> Test(obj) returns something that provides all kinds of functionality
> and methods for testing said object. This can call certain _ methods
> on obj.
That would be fine for me too. The only thing I really care for is for
the actual test methods (._test...) to be attached to foo, and derived
from its classes.
What syntax would you suggest to run all tests?
One thing I am not very keen on is that to get the list of available
tests, one need to do:
sage: t = Test(foo)
sage: t.ass<tab>
But I guess I can live with that (in practice, I myself will be using
t._test_ass<tab>)
Best,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
