On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Simon King<simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote: > > Dear William, > > On Jun 22, 2:20 am, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> sage -coverage file.py >> >> I wrote the first version of that script during a docday so I could >> figure out what to doctest. It subsequently got traction. > > Thank you, that comes at the right time for me... > > Fortunately, it also seems to work for pyx-files. > > It doesn't work perfectly, though (at least on my pyx-files): > - I have a method ngens, and in the doc string one can read > sage: H.ngens() > 4 > However, the coverage script complains that the name of the function > does not occur in the doc tests. This also happens for various other > methods. > - The script misunderstood one line in my code: It believes that it is > a doc test, but in fact it is not in a doc string but in a line of > code; it is a string that I pass to the singular interface. By > consequence, it believes it sees a function definition, but in fact it > is a definition for Singular. > > However, it is a good tool that will help me to bring the doc test > coverage of my package to 100%.
It's not a proper parser. It's just a quick "hack" that goes through the text file and grabs """ (triple quoted strings). It even would break if you use ''' instead of """. Somebody, maybe you, will make it better. Precise bug reports would help a lot too, actually. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
