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

TestSuite improvements #7478

Closed
hivert opened this issue Nov 17, 2009 · 10 comments
Closed

TestSuite improvements #7478

hivert opened this issue Nov 17, 2009 · 10 comments

Comments

@hivert
Copy link

hivert commented Nov 17, 2009

  • Changes "... done" to ". . . pass" in the output of TestSuite().run(verbose = True) to avoid unintentional matches
  • Fix the doctests accordingly.
  • Adds skip option; use it in sage/combinat/sf/jack.py and orthotriang.py
  • In case of failure, execute the following tests after printing out a traceback, and write a summary at the end
  • Only use verbose=True in the doctests when useful (category examples)

Rationale for the ...: when testing something in verbose mode the typical output of sage is:

   sage: P = Sets().example("inherits")
   sage: TestSuite(P).run(verbose=True)
   running ._test_an_element() ... done
   running ._test_element_pickling() ... done
   running ._test_not_implemented_methods() ... done
   running ._test_pickling() ... done
   running ._test_some_elements() ... done

And there is some risks that the "..." match something they should'nt I change them to ". . ."

See discussion on sage-devel

CC: @sagetrac-sage-combinat

Component: doctest coverage

Keywords: TestSuite

Author: Florent Hivert, Nicolas M. Thiéry

Reviewer: Nicolas M. Thiéry, Florent Hivert

Merged: sage-4.3.alpha0

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/7478

@hivert hivert added this to the sage-4.3 milestone Nov 17, 2009
@hivert hivert self-assigned this Nov 17, 2009
@nthiery
Copy link
Contributor

nthiery commented Nov 18, 2009

Reviewer: Nicolas M. Thiéry, Florent Hivert

@nthiery

This comment has been minimized.

@nthiery
Copy link
Contributor

nthiery commented Nov 18, 2009

Changed author from Florent Hivert to Florent Hivert, Nicolas M. Thiéry

@nthiery nthiery changed the title Remove "..." in the output of TestSuite. TestSuite improvements Nov 18, 2009
@nthiery nthiery added t: tests and removed t: bug labels Nov 18, 2009
@mwhansen
Copy link
Contributor

comment:4

There is a spurious "only" to "o.." change in sets_cat.py.

@nthiery
Copy link
Contributor

nthiery commented Nov 18, 2009

comment:5

Replying to @mwhansen:

There is a spurious "only" to "o.." change in sets_cat.py.

Good spot :-)

I had already found a couple, and thought I had done a systematic search.

Fixed in the newly uploaded patch.

@nthiery
Copy link
Contributor

nthiery commented Nov 18, 2009

comment:6

Updated patch fix a doctest I had missed.

@hivert
Copy link
Author

hivert commented Nov 18, 2009

comment:7

There are still some minor problems (missing ``...`` in the documentation of testsuite. Aside those everything is ok for me. Nicolas can you review
trac_7478_testsuite_dots-fh-review.patch
on the queue. Then either me or you fold, reupload and set positive review.

...trying to ping you on irc for synchro.

@nthiery
Copy link
Contributor

nthiery commented Nov 18, 2009

comment:8

Attachment: trac_7478_testsuite_dots-fh.patch.gz

Replying to @hivert:

There are still some minor problems (missing ``...`` in the documentation of testsuite. Aside those everything is ok for me. Nicolas can you review
trac_7478_testsuite_dots-fh-review.patch
on the queue. Then either me or you fold, reupload and set positive review.

...trying to ping you on irc for synchro.

Review patch is good. Folded and uploaded. positive review.

@mwhansen
Copy link
Contributor

Merged: sage-4.3.alpha0

@qed777
Copy link
Mannequin

qed777 mannequin commented Nov 27, 2009

comment:10

I just "discovered" sage.misc.sage_unittest. In case it's of wider use: At #7390 there's a unittest HTML report generator that may make it into SageNB.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants