On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:00 AM, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On May 2, 11:27 am, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote:
>> Hi Marco,
>>
>> On 2 Mai, 16:41, mmarco <mma...@unizar.es> wrote:
>>
>> > Do i have to write documentation strings,
>> > with the corresponding doctest for all these functions? Even for
>> > trivial ones such as _repr_ or _latex_?
>>
>> Yes. In these cases, the method definition plus doc string would
>> likely look like
>>
>> def _repr_(self):
>> """
>> TESTS::
>>
>> sage: B = <some command to create a braid>
>> sage: B # indirect doctest
>> <the representation of B>
>> """
>>
>> Note the "indirect doctest", which is important, since otherwise the
>> coverage script will complain about the fact that the name of the to-
>> be-tested method ("_repr_") does not occur in the test.
>>
>
> Yup, and same for things like _pow_ as you say. On the plus side, it
> can really be as trivial as that - just repeat some other doctest
> where it is used.
Why? Just to improve the coverage statistic? Best to use this to test
at least a new variation.
--
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
