On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:25 PM, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: >> I do think it would be good to start using nosetest >> (http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/0.11.2/) to >> automatically run all functions that start with "test_" in all files, > > I suggested 'nose' was added a long time ago > > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/928632557a8a041c/f8bc25a249ea4483?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=nose#f8bc25a249ea4483 > > the only person to reply (Robert Bradshaw) disagreed.
Well now that I know nose better, I agree with you. It's a really awesome testing framework. I use it all the time for my own work now. >> Verifying correctness of tests is not a waste of time. > > I don't know what the current coverage is, but lets say for argument > it needs another 1000 tests to get 100% coverage. It's better to > verify those 1000 tests now, rather than wait to we get 100% coverage, > then go back and verify them. Orthogonal to your remark, but in sage-4.6: $ sage -coverageall ... Overall weighted coverage score: 84.3% Total number of functions: 26592 We need 173 more function to get to 85% coverage. We need 1503 more function to get to 90% coverage. We need 2833 more function to get to 95% coverage. It's only 2,833 tests! >> But asking referees to check claimed examples -- >> that makes sense! In particular, if I referee some code, and it >> turns out somebody finds that the examples were just wrong, then I as >> the referee will be pretty embarrassed. > > Yes, but using examples like > > sage: taylor(gamma(1/3+x),x,0,3) > > makes it almost impossible for a referee to check it, as the output is huge. I totally agree, and I think that's a very valid criticism for you to make as a referee. But let's not make a new policy out of this. > In any case, you stated only a week or so ago that Magma 2.13 is now > installed on sage.math > > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/8e473e24b0e48772?hl=en That is a post from 2006?!? > It's a shame the license of Wolfram Alpha does not allow for testing > software like Sage. (This was debated some time ago on sage-devel). > Otherwise that would give a nice easy way to verify *some* results. > > "is 100001 prime" > > http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=is+100001+prime I'm not sure what you're talking about exactly at this point. Referees can use wolfram alpha if they want to independently check stuff... Do you mean adding doctests that call wolframalpha? That would be weird. -- William > > >> William Stein >> Professor of Mathematics >> University of Washington >> http://wstein.org > > I appreciate in many cases it's not going to be possible to verify by > other means. One has to be extra careful about the code then. > > Dave > > -- > 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 > -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- 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
