Re: [sage-devel] Coverage and shared doctests...

2016-02-11 Thread Florent Hivert
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:07:06PM -0500, David Roe wrote: > One option would be to use underscore methods to make the coverage script > happy. ??? Do you mean that underscore method don't need to be tested ? Florent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: [sage-devel] Coverage and shared doctests...

2016-02-11 Thread David Roe
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Florent Hivert wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:07:06PM -0500, David Roe wrote: > > One option would be to use underscore methods to make the coverage script > > happy. > > ??? Do you mean that underscore method don't need to be tested ? > Yes. I'm not sure e

Re: [sage-devel] Coverage and shared doctests...

2016-02-11 Thread David Roe
One option would be to use underscore methods to make the coverage script happy. I'm not sure if you'd be able to solve all of your problem like this though. You might also look into generalizing the 32-bit and 64-bit flags in sage/doctest/sources.py (search for "bit") to incorporate different do

[sage-devel] Coverage and shared doctests...

2016-02-11 Thread Florent Hivert
Hi, Background: during my work on #13580 "Parallel map reduce on SearchForest", I hit a bug in the implementation of semaphore on MacOS. So I need some code which on MacOS reproduce the behavior of BoundedSemaphore using a lock and an shared integer. Therefore I'm using the following code: