On Jan 31, 1:15 pm, William Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Dima Pasechnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 30, 1:46 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> On Jan 29, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > >> > William, > >> > I think TESTS:: would be a good idea! > >> > Having an optional part TESTS:: where one can put more or less any > >> > Sage code; if TESTS:: is present, > >> > EXAMPLES:: is ignored, and otherwise EXAMPLES:: play the role of > >> > TESTS:: > > >> We already use TESTS blocks. Both should be tested if both exist. > > > Is there a docstrings-like option to use in order to tell the system > > not to test things in EXAMPLES:: ? > > > Dima > > Put "# not tested" as a comment. > > That said, unless there is a very, very, very good reason, everything > in EXAMPLES should get tested. It's absolutely terrible to have > examples that don't work precisely the way we say they do in the > documentation. I would definitely not positively review any code > that makes frivolous use of "# not tested". > well, I just test what is in EXAMPLES in TESTS (as string comparison fails here, I have to write a bit of code to test properly) It's a bit ugly, but it's a limitation of docstinsg that is impossible to overcome.
(Please see http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8150 for the corresponding patch) Dmitrii > There is also a "# random" marker that one can put on doctests. It > also should be avoided... > > William -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
