Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

testing infrastructure #14

Closed
mlubin opened this issue Jun 8, 2013 · 15 comments
Closed

testing infrastructure #14

mlubin opened this issue Jun 8, 2013 · 15 comments
Assignees

Comments

@mlubin
Copy link
Member

mlubin commented Jun 8, 2013

No description provided.

@ghost ghost assigned IainNZ Jun 8, 2013
@IainNZ
Copy link
Collaborator

IainNZ commented Jun 9, 2013

Basic tests for Variable, AffExpr, and QuadExpr done - see output for a TODO.
Next step is operator overload testing - need lots of * and / and quadratic stuff to give it a good workout. I found my QuadExpr test, which is just testing string-ifying, caught a bug already!

@mlubin
Copy link
Member Author

mlubin commented Jun 10, 2013

I added some functionality to efficiently merge duplicate coefficients, if you'd like to take a look to do a similar thing for printing.

@IainNZ
Copy link
Collaborator

IainNZ commented Jun 10, 2013

Todo: test coverage for 8ede799 -like issues

@mlubin
Copy link
Member Author

mlubin commented Jun 12, 2013

I added some of this in 1f3a192. I wouldn't call it complete though.

@IainNZ
Copy link
Collaborator

IainNZ commented Jun 12, 2013

Nice - maybe I'm missing it, but does it have the test that caused the bug you fixed recently, the one where the indexing was dependent e.g. i=1:N, j=1:i

@mlubin
Copy link
Member Author

mlubin commented Jun 12, 2013

No, it doesn't.

@mlubin
Copy link
Member Author

mlubin commented Jun 12, 2013

Just added: cb2d793.

@IainNZ
Copy link
Collaborator

IainNZ commented Jun 12, 2013

👍

@IainNZ
Copy link
Collaborator

IainNZ commented Jun 13, 2013

Doing pretty good now. Constraints could probably do with more test coverage, I think a couple of unit tests each for MPS and LP just to ensure we don't accidently introduce bugs would be good. Then I guess whatever random models we come up for those, also run them through solve. Once thats done, I'd be willing to close this issue, with the idea that we be from now on, so a) no pushing without running tests, and b) once we start adding stuff, e.g. quadratic, duals, we update/add tests
I don't really care too much about TravisCI integration, its probably not worth it.

@mlubin
Copy link
Member Author

mlubin commented Jun 13, 2013

Sounds like a plan.

@mlubin
Copy link
Member Author

mlubin commented Jun 13, 2013

Actually, it might be helpful to have TravisCI integration especially if we're testing with different solvers. This way, issues with Clp and CoinMP packages will also show up. Not high priority, but definitely useful.

@IainNZ
Copy link
Collaborator

IainNZ commented Jun 13, 2013

Oh yeah, good point. A test for the wider infrastructure!

@IainNZ
Copy link
Collaborator

IainNZ commented Jun 21, 2013

Added Travis-CI stuff
HOWEVER
its failing write now because of JuliaLang/julia#3464 - hopefully that'll be fixed in the next nightly

@IainNZ
Copy link
Collaborator

IainNZ commented Jun 21, 2013

Once you consider constraints, and we add tests, I'd be keen to close this issue. We can add tests for quadratic objective as we go.

@mlubin
Copy link
Member Author

mlubin commented Jun 22, 2013

The travis build passes now, and constraints are a separate issue, so let's close this.

@mlubin mlubin closed this as completed Jun 22, 2013
mlubin added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 11, 2018
WIP: don't splat subexpressions
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants