Re: [Numpy-discussion] doctest improvements patch (and possible regressions)
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Paul Ivanov wrote: > So far, no one has voiced objections, so should I go ahead and check > this in? > +1 from me, at least. I don't see how there could be a downside to fixing a ton of tests :) Cheers, f ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] doctest improvements patch (and possible regressions)
So far, no one has voiced objections, so should I go ahead and check this in? btw, thanks Mike, what about this one: >>> (np.char.lstrip(c, ' ') == np.char.lstrip(c, '')).all() ... # XXX: is this a regression? this line now returns False -pi ... # np.char.lstrip(c,'') does not modify c at all. True best, Paul Ivanov Michael Droettboom, on 2009-12-09 06:04, wrote: > Paul Ivanov wrote: >> I marked up suspicious differences with XXX, since I don't know if >> they're significant. In particular: >> - shortening a defchararray by strip does not change it's dtype to a >> shorter one (apparently it used to?) > Yes. The new behavior is to return a string array with the same > itemsize as the input array. That's primarily just the result of the > new implementation rather than a thought out change, though. > > Sorry, just commenting on the parts I feel competent in :) But I think > this is a great improvement. It would be nice to start doing doctests > as a matter of course to keep the docs accurate. > > Mike > ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] doctest improvements patch (and possible regressions)
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:04 AM, Michael Droettboom wrote: > Sorry, just commenting on the parts I feel competent in :) But I think > this is a great improvement. It would be nice to start doing doctests > as a matter of course to keep the docs accurate. > Indeed. From the sidelines, thanks a lot to Paul for this work! Speaking of testing, here's a bit of code that I've had for a while pending for ipython, but which I think could be very useful for numpy too. Feel free to rip only the parts you need... The point of this code is to get a few nose-style features that produce normal unittests. In particular, it introduces support for single functions to be tests (something nose does but unittest doesn't), and most importantly, parametric tests that can be debugged meaningfully. A simple example: def is_smaller(i,j): assert i lightunit.tgz Description: GNU Zip compressed data ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] doctest improvements patch (and possible regressions)
Paul Ivanov wrote: > I marked up suspicious differences with XXX, since I don't know if > they're significant. In particular: > - shortening a defchararray by strip does not change it's dtype to a > shorter one (apparently it used to?) Yes. The new behavior is to return a string array with the same itemsize as the input array. That's primarily just the result of the new implementation rather than a thought out change, though. Sorry, just commenting on the parts I feel competent in :) But I think this is a great improvement. It would be nice to start doing doctests as a matter of course to keep the docs accurate. Mike -- Michael Droettboom Science Software Branch Operations and Engineering Division Space Telescope Science Institute Operated by AURA for NASA ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
[Numpy-discussion] doctest improvements patch (and possible regressions)
Hi Numpy-devs, I'm a long time listener, first time caller. I grabbed 1.4.0rc1 and was happy that all the tests passed. But then I tried: >>> import numpy as np >>> np.test(doctests=True) ... Ran 1696 tests in 22.027s FAILED (failures=113, errors=24) I looked at some of the failures, and they looked like trivial typos. So I said to myself: "Self, wouldn't it be cool if all the doctests worked?" Well, I didn't quite get there spelunking and snorkeling in the source code a few evenings during the past week, but I got close. With the attached patch (which patches the 1.4.0rc1 tarball), I now get: >>> import numpy as np >>> np.test(doctests=True) ... Ran 1696 tests in 20.937s FAILED (failures=33, errors=25) I marked up suspicious differences with XXX, since I don't know if they're significant. In particular: - shortening a defchararray by strip does not change it's dtype to a shorter one (apparently it used to?) - the docstring for seterr says that np.seterr() should reset all errors to defaults, but clearly doesn't do that - there's a regression in recfunctions which may be related to #1299 and may have been fixed - recfunctions.find_duplicates ignoremask flag has no effect. There are a few other things, but they're minor (e.g. I added a note about how missing values are filled with usemask=False in recfunctions.merge_arrays). I think the only code I added was to testing/noseclasses.py. There, if a test fails, I give a few more chances to pass by normalizing the endianness of both desired and actual output, as well as default int size for 32 and 64 bit machines. This is done just using replace() on the strings. Everything else is docstring stuff, so I was hoping to sneak this into 1.4.0, since it would make it that much more polished. Does that sound crazy? best, Paul Ivanov better-doctests.patch.gz Description: GNU Zip compressed data ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
