Re: [Numpy-discussion] A couple of testing issues
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Anne Archibald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Test functions and methods will only be picked up based on name if they begin with test; check_* will no longer be seen as a test function. Is it possible to induce nose to pick these up and, if not actually run them, warn about them? It's not so good to have some tests silently not being run... Having nose pick up check_ functions as tests may interfere with SciPy testing; it looks like there are a couple dozen functions/methods named that way in the SciPy tree. I didn't look at all of them, though; it could be that some are tests that still need renaming. Since I'm looking at coverage (including test code coverage), any tests that don't get run will be found, at least while I'm working on tests. Still, it might not hurt to have something automated looking for potentially missed tests for 1.2. That would also help with third-party code that depends on NumPy for testing, since they probably don't have the luxury of someone able to spend all their time worrying over test coverage. I can make a pass through all the test_* modules in the source tree under test and post a warning if def check_ is found in them before handing things over to nose.Anyone else have thoughts on this? ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] A couple of testing issues
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 14:19, Alan McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can make a pass through all the test_* modules in the source tree under test and post a warning if def check_ is found in them before handing things over to nose.Anyone else have thoughts on this? I don't think it's worth automating on every run. People can see for themselves if they have any such check_methods() and make the conversion once: nosetests -v --include check_.* --exclude test_.* -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] A couple of testing issues
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 14:26, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 14:19, Alan McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can make a pass through all the test_* modules in the source tree under test and post a warning if def check_ is found in them before handing things over to nose.Anyone else have thoughts on this? I don't think it's worth automating on every run. People can see for themselves if they have any such check_methods() and make the conversion once: nosetests -v --include check_.* --exclude test_.* Hmm, could be wrong about that. Let me find the right incantation. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] A couple of testing issues
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think it's worth automating on every run. People can see for themselves if they have any such check_methods() and make the conversion once: Does this fall into the how in the world should I have known to do that category? As long as there's a prominent note in the release notes, either containing such suggestions or links to a page that does, I don't have any problem just including this in the list of things that people should do if they're planning on upgrading to 1.2. ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] A couple of testing issues
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 14:35, Alan McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think it's worth automating on every run. People can see for themselves if they have any such check_methods() and make the conversion once: Does this fall into the how in the world should I have known to do that category? Doesn't matter. It doesn't work anyways; those arguments are for matching classes and module-level functions, not TestCase methods. Fortunately, grep works just as well. As long as there's a prominent note in the release notes, either containing such suggestions or links to a page that does, I don't have any problem just including this in the list of things that people should do if they're planning on upgrading to 1.2. By all means. This should be documented, of course, but one-time conversion tasks amenable to grep are not worth checking for on every run. -- Robert Kern I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. -- Umberto Eco ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
