> > > Which is why you opened the ticket. The discussion there isn't > > suggesting we shouldn't clear bugs, simply that there isn't a > > canonical place for putting this sort of test (not that I'm aware of, > > perhaps there is). > > I was not implying the discussion was that we should not clear the bug. I > might > be able to do that myself - it seems a weird one, as R can't find the gcc > library, despite numerous other packages link to that library. > > What I'm more concerned about is that there should be a procedure in place to > recheck old bugs.
Sorry, that's what I meant by "clear bugs". > > > Testing every single installed package could be > > quite tricky, as likely the packages change in various spkgs over > > time, but sometimes in subtle ways that an updater of an spkg wouldn't > > be aware of. > > Well, it might be tricky, but at least the person updating the package would > be > aware of it, and would address that on the ticket. It might mean some doctest > needs changing. But better to do that, then find several bits of a package not > working - or worst still, giving the wrong answers. But this assumes that only someone with intimate knowledge of an spkg can update it. If a new package is added to an spkg, often that is buried deep in release notes - often of some intermediate version that Sage didn't update to in the meantime. I understand the concern, but keep in mind that in this case it is quite likely that fewer people will update spkgs for mere bugfixes; only people who really know the spkgs will update them, which could lead to much slower bugfixing. Maybe that's ok. > > I think every time maxima is updated, several doc tests need to be too. Yup, and of course we do this. > > > Perhaps each interface to something with packages that could > > conceivably not build (Gap, maybe? Maxima?) could have a separate > > test_default_packages command which would then just test itself. > > I don't know enough about any of this, which is why I'm seeking advice. > > I know one of the golden rules of testing is that you should create a test > that > exhibits bugs detected. > Yes, I wasn't actually disputing this, just unsure where to do it in this sort of case. Anyway, enough virtual ink spilled/spilt on this. The real issue is that one needs massive amounts of time to write the right kind of doctests and documentation, and since the incentive to add it is not so high in a volunteer project for many people (though thanks to those for whom it is!), getting to that point will take a long, long time. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't try :) but just to be realistic about motivation/time/ability for those who are actually doing it. - kcrisman -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
