>
> now. Some of the code was of very dubious quality in my opinion. I
> recall an email from one developer telling me he did not see much
> point in testing much, as he would just fix bugs when reported !!!
>
Ahahahah :-D
Nathann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
@Nils Bruin
thanks for the info about checking the memory management, its quite useful!
It relates to the initial question about active testing, right?
Maybe it will help me to pinpoint some memory leak bugs in Singular.
My (intermediate) question goes into a little different direction and very
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:27:02 AM UTC-7, kro...@uni-math.gwdg.de wrote:
>
> 1. Does sage provide a concept for user-configurable (separately for each
> package or other context) optional (parameter) testing like in GAP
> or Singular? Purpose: debugging/bug hunting.
>
If you're interested in
Dave:
> The project[Singular] is about math, but the deliverables are software.
>
Yes, and thus it is not smart to fade out software issues.
| buy copies of some books [about SE]
>>
> It is *totally* outside my control.
>
Well, then let that be so. Maybe there are other people in this group
On 13 May 2014 18:39, wrote:
> David Kirkby wrote:
>
>>
>> I have suggested in the past that William buy copies of some books on
>> the subject of "software engineering" for regular developers. I am
>> fairly sure it is something he could justify. But to the best of my
>> knowledge he has not don
David Kirkby wrote:
> I have suggested in the past that William buy copies of some books on
> the subject of "software engineering" for regular developers. I am
> fairly sure it is something he could justify. But to the best of my
> knowledge he has not done it.
>
>
Don't worry about that to
On 13 May 2014 13:31, John Cremona wrote:
> Many contributors to Sage have only had experience of writing code for
> them,selves before, and there is a lot to learn about in the different world
> of open source sofware where you cannot assume that the person running your
> code has a PhD in the ar
I'm glad to hear that the community has developers who are bug hunting, too!
Regarding tests for invalid input:
that also helps to discover bugs (imagine that the invalid input was an
output of another buggy routine)
However, sometimes this is costly (e.g. test if an ideal is radical) and
shou
David has indeed made some very hepful contributions to this -- I remember
the cremona_letter_code business well (the function just assumed that the
input was valid), and there was another case to do with validating the
input to mwrank, an external C++ program included in Sage, which took a bit
of
On 13 May 2014 10:48, wrote:
> Hello,
>
> are here developers in the group who actively test (the routines they use)
> e.g. by throwing random input at them?
> (like in ticket http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/1136 )
>
> If yes, which other techniques do you use to detect bugs?
>
> Thanks,
I have
On 2014-05-13 11:48, kroe...@uni-math.gwdg.de wrote:
Hello,
are here developers in the group who actively test (the routines they
use) e.g. by throwing random input at them?
I sometimes do random tests when testing a ticket. Better yet, such
random tests can also be added as a doctest if they
Hello,
are here developers in the group who actively test (the routines they use)
e.g. by throwing random input at them?
(like in ticket http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/1136 )
If yes, which other techniques do you use to detect bugs?
Thanks,
Jack
--
You received this message because you a
12 matches
Mail list logo
