Hi!
On 19 Jun., 10:30, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote:
> Note that things worked in the past, when I had the following:
> - mtx.so was in the current directory
> - I set SAGE_PATH to the current directory
> - I did sage -t -long -optional mtx.pyx
>
> What is the difference?
Apparently the difference lies in Sage and not in my tests. I just
tried again the exact setting in which testing my extension modules
used to work -- now it fails, since "sage -t mtx.pyx" tries to compile
mtx.pyx for whatever reason.
Couldn't "sage -t" just take any text file, search for "sage:" prompts
etc, and verify the output?
Another idea.
Let "knight" be a (python) package or module. Is there a function
(say, recursive_doc_test) in Sage that does the doc tests for "knight"
and, recursively, for its contents (functions; classes; methods of
these classes; other modules, if knight is a package; ...) and returns
the results of the test as a string? I mean
sage: import knight
sage: recursive_doc_test(knight)
'The following items had faiilures:
In knight.Ni.Shrubbery, l. 12:
expected:
"herring"
got:
nothing
...'
The line number would refer to the 12th line in the doc string of the
class knight.Ni.Shrubbery, say.
Is there anything of that kind in sage? Should there be?
The disadvantage would be that "recursive_doc_test" probably couldn't
test cdef-methods.
Cheers,
Simon
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
