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.
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
