On Jun 11, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi Florent,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
I like this way of seeing. However, I was speaking about module or
functions
which are not tested nor deprecated and nowhere used into sage
(easy to check
using grep)
Hi John,
I don't have an answer to your questions, but...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:38:52 +0100, John Cremona wrote:
> I intend to deal with interfaces/mwrank.py (2/10) and
> databases/cremona.py (17/40) (at least to start with!).
... have a look at #9223, I have just posted a patch that brings t
Is there still a wiki page for people to sign up to deal with one or
more of these? Or a standard for trac ticket titles to ensure that
effort is not duplicated?
I intend to deal with interfaces/mwrank.py (2/10) and
databases/cremona.py (17/40) (at least to start with!).
John
On 12 June 2010 05
Hi Robert,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Robert Miller wrote:
> Yes, exactly. Or 5 modules, or 100. I want to go down the list and
> start writing doctests for the first module I see there which I feel
> relatively comfortable working on.
See the updated coverage report at
http://sage.mat
On Jun 11, 2010, at 2:33 AM, Florent Hivert wrote:
Hi Minh,
They all looks like they should be deprecated and removed... If
it's true I
rather improving the doctest coverage by removing them than adding
doctests... However I'd like to have the confirmation that they
are indeed
obsole
Hi Minh,
Thanks for carefully investigating those:
> > sage/monoids/monoid.py
>
> I think this module should stay put. Here is a dependency chart based
> on that module:
>
> monoids.monoid.Monoid_class --> monoids.free_monoid.FreeMonoid_class
> --> monoids.string_monoid.StringMonoid_class
Hi Florent,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
> sage/monoids/monoid.py
I think this module should stay put. Here is a dependency chart based
on that module:
monoids.monoid.Monoid_class --> monoids.free_monoid.FreeMonoid_class
--> monoids.string_monoid.StringMonoid_class
Minh,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Here is my understanding of what you want. Let's say the Sage
> community has enough time to write tests for 20 modules. Which 20
> modules could we choose to write tests for such that it results in the
> greatest overall weighted covera
Hi,
> > I like this way of seeing. However, I was speaking about module or functions
> > which are not tested nor deprecated and nowhere used into sage (easy to
> > check
> > using grep). Does it make sens to remove them without a deprecation warning
> > ?
> > Many code seems to had been put
Hi Robert,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Robert Miller wrote:
> Minh,
>
> Can you make a report which lists the files which, if brought up to
> 100% coverage, would benefit overall coverage the most?
Here is my understanding of what you want. Let's say the Sage
community has enough time to w
Hi Florent,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
> I like this way of seeing. However, I was speaking about module or functions
> which are not tested nor deprecated and nowhere used into sage (easy to check
> using grep). Does it make sens to remove them without a depre
Hi Minh,
> > They all looks like they should be deprecated and removed... If it's true I
> > rather improving the doctest coverage by removing them than adding
> > doctests... However I'd like to have the confirmation that they are indeed
> > obsolete...
>
> We are aiming for a Sage 5.0 rel
Hi Florent,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Florent Hivert
wrote:
> They all looks like they should be deprecated and removed... If it's true I
> rather improving the doctest coverage by removing them than adding
> doctests... However I'd like to have the confirmation that they are indeed
>
Hi David,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> Consider two areas
>
> # interfaces/tachyon.py: 0% (0 of 4)
> # graphs/generic_graph.py: 99% (200 of 201)
>
> Where would it be most useful to add one doc test?
>
> At least from my very little understanding of this, Having 8
Hi David,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> I think their test procedures are a bit over the top, but it certainly
> brings in to perspective how some developers feel about testing.
More testing is good. The SQLite team certainly has a good variety of
tests. It's some
On Jun 10, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
On 06/10/10 09:25 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi folks,
One of the main goals of the upcoming Sage 5.0 release is to get
doctest coverage of the Sage library up to at least 90%. As of Sage
4.4.4.alpha0, the overall weighted coverage is 82.7%.
S
Minh,
Can you make a report which lists the files which, if brought up to
100% coverage, would benefit overall coverage the most?
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> One of the main goals of the upcoming Sage 5.0 release is to get
> doctest coverage of the Sage li
Hi Minh,
> And you're done. Here [2] is a report generated by the script. The
> idea is to provide an overview of which modules need work. I'd be
> interested to know what other types of doctest coverage reports people
> would like to see. Comments, suggestions, critiques, etc. are welcome.
Hi folks,
One of the main goals of the upcoming Sage 5.0 release is to get
doctest coverage of the Sage library up to at least 90%. As of Sage
4.4.4.alpha0, the overall weighted coverage is 82.7%. To get a sense
of which modules in the Sage library need work on their coverage
scores, you could use
On 06/10/10 10:27 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
On 06/10/10 09:25 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi folks,
One of the main goals of the upcoming Sage 5.0 release is to get
doctest coverage of the Sage library up to at least 90%. As of Sage
4.4.4.a
On 06/10/10 09:25 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi folks,
One of the main goals of the upcoming Sage 5.0 release is to get
doctest coverage of the Sage library up to at least 90%. As of Sage
4.4.4.alpha0, the overall weighted coverage is 82.7%.
Seems we are a long way off.
It seems to me, rather tha
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 06/10/10 09:25 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> One of the main goals of the upcoming Sage 5.0 release is to get
>> doctest coverage of the Sage library up to at least 90%. As of Sage
>> 4.4.4.alpha0, the overall weighted co
22 matches
Mail list logo
