On 3 Nov, 11:09, Mitesh Patel <qed...@gmail.com> wrote: <SNIP>
> > I have been saying this for a very long time, to many people. *ALL* > > mathematical libraries are broken and contain bugs. If you don't test > > the code you are using, it *is* broken. The right ratio of test code > > to code is really pretty close to 50/50. And if you think I don't do > > this myself when I write code (even Sage code), well you'd be wrong. > > Does anyone have an estimate of this ratio for the Sage library? > I don't know how to measure this. I noted that tests seem to appear inside docstrings r""" .... """ in sections labelled TESTS. There were lots of other lines in docstrings in sections labelled EXAMPLES, INTERNAL DOCUMENTATION or REFERENCES. So I wrote a short C program and script to cover the .py files recursively in sage-4.6/devel/sage-main/sage and the output is here: http://selmer.warwick.ac.uk/output The final column should give the % of nonblank lines in the file which are in a docstring after a header TESTS, but not in any of the other kinds of sections in a docstring. (This is not the most scientific measurement in the world but a first approximation.) The count includes the TESTS header itself. The program skips blank lines and lines containing only whitespace and does not count them for any purpose. If you tell me what other kinds of sections I should look for, I can modify the program. I can also easily get it to print the number of lines of references, etc, if that is useful info. <SNIP> Bill. -- 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
