On 5 Jul., 23:06, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote:
> Hi Georg,
>
> On 5 Jul., 22:13, gsw <georgswe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > first of all, "sage-check" is something specific to Sage.
>
> Do you mean spkg-check? But sure, this is Sage specific as well, since
> AFAIK spkg stands for Sage package.
Ah, typo on my side. It is "spkg-check" we are talking about, of
course! I don't know if a "sage-check" script even exists.
Sorry,
gsw
>
> > But if you have, say, a C or CPP library in your spkg, it is a must
> > that the spkg-check is executable without Sage/Python/Cython running
> > at all, to be able to detect linker problems, compiler issues,
> > platform dependencies, and the like.
>
> My package does involve C libraries, and also involves some
> executables. However, the main part is Cython.
>
> But apparently I completely misunderstood the role of spkg-check. My
> approach was to build some extensions for Sage (if it fails in this
> early stage: Bad luck...!), and then to test *the extensions* rather
> than to test the build process.
>
> Hence, I thought that spkg-check is a sage-script that takes care of
> tests (e.g. doc-tests) covering all extensions. Note that this is non-
> trivial, since it is currently not really possible to test a pyx-file
> nor a __init__.py with "sage -t";
> seehttp://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/5343...
>
> :-/
>
> I wonder what I can do in this case.
>
> I have a script that walks through all public methods of classes that
> are defined in modules of the package. It also complains if it finds a
> method without doc test. Certainly useful, as it can be applied to any
> extension module. But currently, I can't offer more than that.
>
> My package involves a modified part of the C-MeatAxe library. It has a
> test suite, but I never really used it. Perhaps I should try to add
> this to my spkg-check.
>
> The package also involves not-yet-published C-libraries and
> executables written by David Green. They don't have a test suite. Of
> course, the doc tests would fail if something is wrong with the C-
> library, but I understand that it wouldn't help to locate problems
> with portability etc.
>
> > If this does answer your questions, please feel free to open a trac
> > ticket "Developers' Guide enhancement: About spkg-check". :-)
>
> I think I will open such ticket in a few days. I need to think a few
> things over. My hope was to get my package ready for publication this
> week end, but there was too much trouble with the doc tests alone.
>
> Cheers,
> Simon
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
