Hi David, On 11 Jun., 00:32, "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > At least from my very little understanding of this, Having 89% coverage would > be > better than 90% coverage, if those 89% were well targeted.
It is not clear to me why one module should be considered being more important than another. I would not support if you suggest targeting the effort by the *topic* of the modules being doc tested. Arguing like "many people do calculus and graphics, so, concentrate on this" will only lead to a meta-discussion. Or do you just say that adding a single doc test to a module with 0% coverage will have a better impact than adding a single test for a module with 70% coverage? This might indeed be a good way to find a starting point. Anyway, I am +1 to trying and getting a 90% overall doc test coverage; it is a valuable aim. IMO it is *always* worth it to write doc tests since it is very likely to uncover flaws (in particular if the person who writes the test is not the same as the one who wrote the code). My 0.02€ Simon -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
