Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Travis E. Oliphant > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[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. I'm completely supportive of this kind of effort. Let's go write unit tests and stop harassing people who are fixing bugs.
-Travis _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
