On 1 December 2010 18:18, David Roe <r...@math.harvard.edu> wrote: > I disagree that doctests should need to be independently verified.
I think we will have to agree to differ then. > Of course, if we had an arbitrarily large amount of time to write doctests, > then it would be a laudible goal. Even now, I think there are situations > where it would be reasonable to ask this of the author of a patch: if there > was some indication of inconsistency for example. And if someone wants to > go through the Sage library adding such consistency checks, I think that's a > great way to improve Sage. So you admit it would improve stage to check the tests. > But it's already difficult enough to get code > refereed without adding a requirement that code have such consistency > checks. It would probably be a bit easier to convince reviewers if your doctests can be verified. > The doctests that you object to fill two important roles: > 1) they provide an example to a reader of the documentation how to use the > function. Yes, perhaps a confusing one if the answer is wrong. An embarrassing one if the examples are wrong. > 2) they provide a check so that if some change to the Sage library breaks > something, we find out when testing. > Until we have 100% doctest coverage, I think that's plenty. 100% covered of unverified tests is not worth a lot to me. What do you propose we do when we get 100% coverage - go back and check if the rests are valid or not? What a waste of time that would be. It would be less overall effort to do the tests correctly the first time. If you are going to give an example, how much longer does it take to check if they are consistent with Mathematica or similar software? Or chose an integral from a book? Dave -- 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
