On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Travis E. Oliphant > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Besides, having a "test-per-checkin" is not the proper mapping in my > > mind. I'd rather see whole check-ins devoted to testing large pieces > > of code rather than spend all unit-test foo on a rigid policy of > > "regression" testing each check-in. > > Stéfan is proposing "test-per-bugfix", not "test-per-checkin". That is > eminently feasible. You need to do some kind of testing to be sure > that you actually fixed the problem. It is simply *not* *that* *hard* > to write that in unit test form. > I'll add that every time I've tried to write comprehensive tests for subsystems while cleaning up code, undiscovered bugs show up: complex arccos using the wrong branch, some logical operators having the wrong signature. I expect the first has been there since numeric prehistory, and the second for several years. Those aren't subtle bugs, they are just bugs. Now that development has slowed down, I think it is time to start working on comprehensive tests that verify that numpy works as supposed. This will also help us pin down what the specs for various functions actually are, something that can be a bit nebulous at times. Chuck
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
