On Monday, September 7, 2020 at 2:27:25 PM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> I think it's possible to write unit tests already, so if you prefer you
> should be able to do that. I know the category framework has some
> standardized testing. It may be able to be triggered from doctests, even!
>
On Monday, September 7, 2020 at 7:13:28 AM UTC-7, tobia...@gmx.de wrote:
>
> As for the advantages of unittests over doctests (given my limited
> experience with the latter):
> - Can easily run and debug single tests
>
For the most part, cut/paste realizes that for doctests too
> - Get full
On 07/09/2020 17:13, tobia...@gmx.de wrote:
I wasn't aware of the fact that many contributors to sage are users in
the first place, and contributors second. So they are probably more
familiar with sage's doctests than with unittests. That's good input,
thanks!
For me, it's actually the
I wasn't aware of the fact that many contributors to sage are users in the
first place, and contributors second. So they are probably more familiar
with sage's doctests than with unittests. That's good input, thanks!
For me, it's actually the converse: I didn't know what doctests are, but
was
On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 11:18:18 AM UTC-7, tobia...@gmx.de wrote:
>
> Thanks for the quick answers. It's good to know that sage does have a
> distinction between classical doctests and unit tests. Is there a deeper
> reason than tradition that the latter is implemented as doc tests using
> (I don't know where we are now, but I would guess it must be 95%).
I was curious to check where we are now:
$ sage -coverage --summary src/sage
Global score: 96.5% (49627 of 51409)
480 files with wrong documentation
1292 functions with no doc
490 functions with no test
473 doctest are
Very early in the sage development, it became an obligation that all new
code getting into Sage must be 100% doctested (see the command sage
-coverage ). Also, it was a goal in the first years to
increase the coverage of the sage library which went from a low 60% to
above 90% (I don't know
On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 2:18:18 PM UTC-4 tobia...@gmx.de wrote:
> Thanks for the quick answers. It's good to know that sage does have a
> distinction between classical doctests and unit tests. Is there a deeper
> reason than tradition that the latter is implemented as doc tests using
Thanks for the quick answers. It's good to know that sage does have a
distinction between classical doctests and unit tests. Is there a deeper
reason than tradition that the latter is implemented as doc tests using
TESTS, instead of more conventional approaches using pytest or nose? Refs
On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 7:02:27 AM UTC-7, tobia...@gmx.de wrote:
>
> I noticed that there are a lot of doctests in the existing code that test
> rather elementary things. These are often not utterly important for a user
> of the method, but are rather unit tests that verify the correct
On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 7:02:27 AM UTC-7, tobia...@gmx.de wrote:
>
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm currently in the progress of cleaning up my code implementing
> symplectic structures in sage. While doing so, I noticed that there are a
> lot of doctests in the existing code that test rather
11 matches
Mail list logo
