On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Simon King <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi!
Hi. Yeah, I've been making a lot of improvements over the last couple of days. Glad to see someone noticed :). > At #13370, I just noticed that the patchbot isn't even running the > doctest, because plugins.coverage complains. I think it is a bad idea to > not run the tests just because plugins.commit_messages or > plugins.coverage or plugins.trailing_whitespace fails. Yes, very true. This particular patchbot is running in a "plugin only" mode for testing and quick coverage; the normal behavior has not changed. > In addition, I don't understand why the plugin is complaining: All > functions introduced by my patch have a test, and I even add a test that > refers to the ticket (showin that some problem is fixed). So, what > criteria are to meet for making the plugin happy? Looking at http://patchbot.sagemath.org/log/13370/debian/lenny/sid/x86_64/2.6.24-28-server/sage.math.washington.edu/2012-08-31%2008:05:43%20-0700?plugin=plugins.coverage&diff=/log/0/debian/lenny/sid/x86_64/2.6.24-28-server/sage.math.washington.edu/2012-08-31%2003%3A35%3A10%20-0700&ticket=13370&base=5.3.rc0 , I see Decreased doctests misc/cachefunc.pyx from 56 / 63 = 88% to 60 / 68 = 88% which indicates that there were formerly 7 undoctested functions in this file and now there are 8. Now it's quite possible that sage -coverageall has a bug in it, which is beyond the scope of the patchbot. Also, unhappy plugins shouldn't be a blocker, rather they should be something the reviewer should at least be aware of (which may of course indicate a blocker, if there are for example new undoctested functions). - Robert -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
