Re: [sage-devel] more tests in sage (not doctests)

2016-06-22 Thread William Stein
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Stephan Ehlen wrote: >> > d) test unpickling of objects which seems to break rather often and is >> > not covered at all by any of the doctests >> >> This can be done with doctests (possibly using the pickle jar). > > > How would the pickles be stored/distributed?

Re: [sage-devel] more tests in sage (not doctests)

2016-06-22 Thread Stephan Ehlen
Thanks a lot for your answer, Jeroen. On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 2:57:08 AM UTC-6, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2016-06-21 23:06, stephan...@gmail.com wrote: > > 1) You want to keep the source code clean so doctests should be “short”. > But some test cases require more complicated code or h

Re: [sage-devel] more tests in sage (not doctests)

2016-06-22 Thread Johan S . H . Rosenkilde
> It's a little dangerous, our doctest framework uses the XKCD random > number generator. There's prior work by S. Adams: http://dilbert.com/strip/2001-10-25 Best, Johan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this gr

Re: [sage-devel] more tests in sage (not doctests)

2016-06-22 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 06/22/2016 04:57 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > >> b) randomized test, example: check for a number of randomly >> generated number fields that arithmetic operations with randomly >> generated number field elements gives the correct results. >> Randomized tests help to identify issues that occur wi

Re: [sage-devel] more tests in sage (not doctests)

2016-06-22 Thread Johan S . H . Rosenkilde
Big +1. There's the sage/tests folder which seems to be a place where certain developers who really couldn't help themselves put some additional tests. But it doesn't go near as far as what you're proposing. However, there's obvious issues wrt. ensuring that such tests gets written once in a whil

Re: [sage-devel] more tests in sage (not doctests)

2016-06-22 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2016-06-21 23:06, stephan.j.eh...@gmail.com wrote: 1) You want to keep the source code clean so doctests should be “short”. But some test cases require more complicated code or have long output which you would not like to add to the source code. For long or special doctests, you can put th

[sage-devel] more tests in sage (not doctests)

2016-06-22 Thread stephan . j . ehlen
Hi everyone, I would like to discuss adding at least one more testing method to the sage development process than just doctests (e.g. nose). Doctests are certainly great but they have obvious limitations. Some of them are: 1) You want to keep the source code clean so doctests should be “short”