On Dec 1, 5:30 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> But let's not make Sage too much more bureaucratic. If anything, it's > >> already too bureaucratic. I personally can hardly stand to submit > >> anything to Sage anymore because of this. > > > :( > > >> 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, > >> in addition to doctests. This is how I've been testing the purple-sage > >> library (http://code.google.com/p/purplesage/), and for many cases it > >> does result in me writing much more comprehensive test suites. > > > You meanhttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9921? > > Yes. I especially agree with David Kirkby's remark: "IMHO it would be > sensible to have nose as a standard package.". >
Oh, great! Then I may put that on my to-do list. I know Jason is also interested in this. > > One interesting point coming out of this is that the onus is put on > > the author, not the reviewer, for testing. I assume that means > > "running doctests with ./sage -t or something", not "trying edge/ > > corner cases the author might not have thought of and making sure > > those work", which I think does properly belong with the reviewer. > > I disagree. The author *and* the reviewer should both do as much as they can > reasonably do. Then I misread some of your comments. Thanks for clarifying. - 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
