Re: [sympy] [RFC] what test to add for an issue

2014-09-04 Thread Aaron Meurer
Marking the existing test as @slow and adding the faster test seems like a good workaround to me. Aaron Meurer On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Sergey B Kirpichev wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:47:58AM +0200, Joachim Durchholz wrote: >> Personally, I do not like slow tests. Practice has show

Re: [sympy] [RFC] what test to add for an issue

2014-09-04 Thread Sergey B Kirpichev
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:47:58AM +0200, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > Personally, I do not like slow tests. Practice has shown that they > tend to be ignored, and they aren't even always run before a merge. AFAIK, we check slow tests before merge (at least for reduced number of versions of the pyth

Re: [sympy] [RFC] what test to add for an issue

2014-09-03 Thread Joachim Durchholz
Am 04.09.2014 um 08:24 schrieb Sergey B Kirpichev: On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 07:54:32AM +0200, Joachim Durchholz wrote: - Guard against regression. (Normal tests.) If the SymPy fails on the same, already reported code sample again (no matter for which reason) - is that a regression? Depends on

Re: [sympy] [RFC] what test to add for an issue

2014-09-03 Thread Sergey B Kirpichev
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 07:54:32AM +0200, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > - Guard against regression. (Normal tests.) If the SymPy fails on the same, already reported code sample again (no matter for which reason) - is that a regression? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: [sympy] [RFC] what test to add for an issue

2014-09-03 Thread Joachim Durchholz
I think unit tests serve these purposes: - Document an API by example. (We do that in doctests.) - Guard against regression. (Normal tests.) - Test emergent properties, i.e. those that cannot be trivially deduced from reading the source code. (Doctest or normal test, depending on whether the

Re: [sympy] [RFC] what test to add for an issue

2014-09-03 Thread Chris Smith
On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 2:07:45 PM UTC-5, Sergey Kirpichev wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 6:44:06 AM UTC+4, Aaron Meurer wrote: >> >> I think such situations are OK, as long as you understand why the test >> failed before and verified that the new test really tests the same

Re: [sympy] [RFC] what test to add for an issue

2014-09-03 Thread Joachim Durchholz
Am 03.09.2014 um 21:07 schrieb Sergey Kirpichev: On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 6:44:06 AM UTC+4, Aaron Meurer wrote: I think such situations are OK, as long as you understand why the test failed before and verified that the new test really tests the same thing. 1. We can make mistakes here

Re: [sympy] [RFC] what test to add for an issue

2014-09-03 Thread Sergey Kirpichev
On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 6:44:06 AM UTC+4, Aaron Meurer wrote: > > I think such situations are OK, as long as you understand why the test > failed before and verified that the new test really tests the same > thing. > 1. We can make mistakes here. 2. Probably, we want to be sure, that we

Re: [sympy] [RFC] what test to add for an issue

2014-09-02 Thread Aaron Meurer
I think such situations are OK, as long as you understand why the test failed before and verified that the new test really tests the same thing. Aaron Meurer On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Chris Smith wrote: > At https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/7945 discussion involving a change > that I ma

[sympy] [RFC] what test to add for an issue

2014-09-02 Thread Chris Smith
At https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/7945 discussion involving a change that I made to a test that was added in response to issue 6533 has arisen. In that issue a particular expression (which is slow to compute) raised an assertion error, identifying that a change needed to be made in the code