[sage-devel] Re: Doctest for a minor bugfix?
Hi Minh, I still have a problem on this issue. 1. TESTS: section is not documented in the developer manual as of Sage 4.1.1 2. Examples in TESTS: section are still included in the Sage reference manual. If they are intended for test purpose only, then they should not be included in the reference manual, which is for the users. Do I misunderstand something? Kwankyu --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doctest for a minor bugfix?
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Kwankyu ekwan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Minh, I still have a problem on this issue. 1. TESTS: section is not documented in the developer manual as of Sage 4.1.1 2. Examples in TESTS: section are still included in the Sage reference manual. If they are intended for test purpose only, then they should not be included in the reference manual, which is for the users. Do I misunderstand something? No, we just have not got around to actually implementing 2 yet. Want to help? William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doctest for a minor bugfix?
Hi Kwankyu,
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Kwankyu ekwan...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
Do I misunderstand something?
The section TESTS: is not documented in the Developers' Guide
because no one so far has written a patch to update the Guide. Patches
welcome :-) However, note that the section Reviewing Patches [1]
has this dot point:
{{{
In particular, is there a doctest illustrating that the bug has been
fixed? If a function used to give the wrong answer and this patch
fixes that, then if possible, it should include a doctest illustrating
its new success.
}}}
[1] http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/trac.html#reviewing-patches
--
Regards
Minh Van Nguyen
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doctest for a minor bugfix?
On Oct 12, 5:08 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Kwankyu ekwan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Minh, I still have a problem on this issue. 1. TESTS: section is not documented in the developer manual as of Sage 4.1.1 2. Examples in TESTS: section are still included in the Sage reference manual. If they are intended for test purpose only, then they should not be included in the reference manual, which is for the users. Do I misunderstand something? No, we just have not got around to actually implementing 2 yet. Want to help? I would point out that in the code, some examples in the TESTS section can be quite helpful to users. So if someone wants to implement 2, they had better check whether each such example is worth including in the reference manual (and so should be moved to the EXAMPLES block) or not. Including too many examples is better than including too few. John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doctest for a minor bugfix?
On Oct 13, 9:08 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Kwankyu ekwan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Minh, I still have a problem on this issue. 1. TESTS: section is not documented in the developer manual as of Sage 4.1.1 2. Examples in TESTS: section are still included in the Sage reference manual. If they are intended for test purpose only, then they should not be included in the reference manual, which is for the users. Do I misunderstand something? No, we just have not got around to actually implementing 2 yet. I see. Want to help? Not now. Kwankyu --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doctest for a minor bugfix?
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:24 PM, John H Palmieri jhpalmier...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 12, 5:08 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Kwankyu ekwan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Minh, I still have a problem on this issue. 1. TESTS: section is not documented in the developer manual as of Sage 4.1.1 2. Examples in TESTS: section are still included in the Sage reference manual. If they are intended for test purpose only, then they should not be included in the reference manual, which is for the users. Do I misunderstand something? No, we just have not got around to actually implementing 2 yet. Want to help? I would point out that in the code, some examples in the TESTS section can be quite helpful to users. So if someone wants to implement 2, they had better check whether each such example is worth including in the reference manual (and so should be moved to the EXAMPLES block) or not. Including too many examples is better than including too few. Maybe we should not bother implementing 2?Nobody has pushed to do it, and your remark above just made it a difficult task. It will also be potentially be difficult to maintain, since it means potentially tricky and bug-prone patches to how we use Sphinx *and* IPython *and* the Notebook. -- William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doctest for a minor bugfix?
William Stein wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:24 PM, John H Palmieri jhpalmier...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 12, 5:08 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Kwankyu ekwan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Minh, I still have a problem on this issue. 1. TESTS: section is not documented in the developer manual as of Sage 4.1.1 2. Examples in TESTS: section are still included in the Sage reference manual. If they are intended for test purpose only, then they should not be included in the reference manual, which is for the users. Do I misunderstand something? No, we just have not got around to actually implementing 2 yet. Want to help? I would point out that in the code, some examples in the TESTS section can be quite helpful to users. So if someone wants to implement 2, they had better check whether each such example is worth including in the reference manual (and so should be moved to the EXAMPLES block) or not. Including too many examples is better than including too few. Maybe we should not bother implementing 2?Nobody has pushed to do it, and your remark above just made it a difficult task. It will also be potentially be difficult to maintain, since it means potentially tricky and bug-prone patches to how we use Sphinx *and* IPython *and* the Notebook. Perhaps collapsible headings (so TESTS was automatically collapsed) would answer the need to not inundate the user with a million tests for each case of a function, while also letting the user access every bit of documentation if they so desire. Jason -- Jason Grout --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doctest for a minor bugfix?
Perhaps collapsible headings (so TESTS was automatically collapsed) +1 Nick --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doctest for a minor bugfix?
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Nick Alexander ncalexan...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps collapsible headings (so TESTS was automatically collapsed) +1 To summarize all these great ideas: 1. In the notebook, we do some sort of post processing (?) to the output of Sphinx to add in Javascript to make a collapsible TESTS section 2. The TESTS section is never shown in Ipython introspection? Or always shown? 3. Somebody goes through all TESTS sections in all of Sage and makes a judgment calls to move some things out of TESTS, because evidently the author of some tests in TESTS didn't understand what TESTS means. 4. What happens in Emacs sage-mode? Is 3 not needed because of 1 and 2? -- William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doctest for a minor bugfix?
On Oct 12, 2009, at 8:27 PM, William Stein wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Nick Alexander ncalexan...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps collapsible headings (so TESTS was automatically collapsed) +1 To summarize all these great ideas: 1. In the notebook, we do some sort of post processing (?) to the output of Sphinx to add in Javascript to make a collapsible TESTS section +1 2. The TESTS section is never shown in Ipython introspection? Or always shown? ipython introspection is usually handled by something like less, so because they're at the bottom they never get in the way until the user scrolls all the way down. 3. Somebody goes through all TESTS sections in all of Sage and makes a judgment calls to move some things out of TESTS, because evidently the author of some tests in TESTS didn't understand what TESTS means. 4. What happens in Emacs sage-mode? Is 3 not needed because of 1 and 2? I think so. I only put things in TESTS if it's clearly uninteresting to the end user, but something we want to guard against. If someone wants to volunteer to do this, that would be great, but I think there's higher priorities (e.g. adding documentation and examples to functions that don't have any/many). Of course, if I see something amiss when I'm editing relevant code I'll just fix it there. - Robert --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doctest for a minor bugfix?
Hi Kwankyu, On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Kwankyu ekwan...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP Do I need to put a doctest anyway? Yes. Put the doctest under a section called TESTS: and make sure to reference the relevant ticket number. Doctests under the section TESTS: are meant to demonstrate that a bug has been fixed. They should also demonstrate the exceptions that are caught by the relevant method/function/class. See, for example, the following page from the reference manual: http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ring.html#sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ring.MPolynomialRing_polydict_domain.monomial_divides -- Regards Minh Van Nguyen --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doctest for a minor bugfix?
Thanks. I forgot the Tests section. Kwankyu --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Doctest for a minor bugfix?
On Monday 12 October 2009, Kwankyu wrote: Hi, I wrote a patch to remove the redundant minus sign in the last output in the following: sage: from sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ring import MPolynomialRing_polydict sage: R.x,y=MPolynomialRing_polydict(GF(2),2,order='lex') sage: R Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y over Finite Field of size 2 sage: f=x+y sage: f.lt() -x Alex Ghitza wrote a patch to fix printing of multivariate polynomials in general http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6551 which might contain your fix. However, it needs some work before it can go in. Martin -- name: Martin Albrecht _pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x8EF0DC99 _otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEBA 640E8856 D7951CCF _www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb _jab: martinralbre...@jabber.ccc.de --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
