On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Robert Bradshaw<rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:29:46AM -0700, Nicolas Thiéry wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 04:40:50PM +0200, William Stein wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Nicolas M. >>>>> To ease the reviewing of the category code, and also to make it >>>>> more >>>>> generic and useful, I have extracted the test framework code out of >>>>> the categories and into SageObject. >>>>> >>>>> See also: http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/ >>>>> 0586b64f72435629 >>>>> >>>>> Anyone up for reviewing it? >>>> >>>> Change the name from obj.check() to obj._check(). It is not >>>> reasonable that if one does obj.<tab> on *any* Sage object, one >>>> sees check. >>> >>> Thanks for the feedback. I readily changed the .tester gadget to >>> ._tester as you suggested; this one was definitely internal. I am not >>> so sure though for .check, and for all the .test_... methods: >>> >>> - I definitely see the point of not cluttering the tab completion >>> x.<tab>, in particular when x=1. >>> >>> - On the other hand, this is a functionality we definitely want to >>> advertise, and not just among developers. Things like >>> .test_associativity are also a tool for users who want to test >>> conjectural mathematical properties of their pet algebraic >>> structure (say a semi-group). This is one of my big motivations >>> for the category stuff: empowering any user to construct in a >>> couple lines such a structure. >>> >>> - I tried to stay close to the testunit conventions, where the test >>> methods are named .test*. But anyway we are already not quite >>> consistent with it, since we make the abuse of merging together a >>> SageObject and its TestCase. >>> >>> - We also don't want different naming conventions for testing >>> parents, elements, or other sage objects. >>> >>> So, before proceeding, I would like to be sure that there is a >>> consensus there, especially since I already advertised this >>> functionality quite some, and the issued had not been raised yet >>> (I am >>> a bit lazy also, since I would now need to do the changes in a couple >>> patches). >> >> No feedback? Beware: if no one care, I'll shortly put back the "needs >> review" flag on the patch :-) > > I'm also in favor of _test_X to avoid cluttering up the tab > completion. Another option to increase visibility would be to have a > test object, e.g. > > sage: foo.test.associativity() > True
+1. I think it merges the two concerns together nicely (visibility and avoiding clutter). Franco -- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
