Robert Kern wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 19:19, Ryan May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Robert Kern wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 17:50, Fernando Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Pauli Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> But it's a custom tweak to doctest, so it might break at some point in >>>>> the future, and I don't love the monkeypatching here... >>>> Welcome to the joys of extending doctest/unittest. They hardcoded so >>>> much stuff in there that the only way to reuse that code is by >>>> copy/paste/monkeypatch. It's absolutely atrocious. >>>> >>>>>> We could always just make the plotting section one of those "it's just >>>>>> an example not a doctest" things and remove the ">>>" (since it doesn't >>>>>> appear to provide any useful test coverage or anything). >>>>> If possible, I'd like other possibilities be considered first before >>>>> jumping this route. I think it would be nice to retain the ability to run >>>>> also the matplotlib examples as (optional) doctests, to make sure also >>>>> they execute correctly. Also, using two different markups in the >>>>> documentation to work around a shortcoming of doctest is IMHO not very >>>>> elegant. >>>> How about a much simpler approach? Just pre-populate the globals dict >>>> where doctest executes with an object called 'plt' that basically does >>>> >>>> def noop(*a,**k): pass >>>> >>>> class dummy(): >>>> def __getattr__(self,k): return noop >>>> >>>> plt = dummy() >>>> >>>> This would ensure that all calls to plt.anything() silently succeed in >>>> the doctests. Granted, we're not testing matplotlib, but it has the >>>> benefit of simplicity and of letting us keep consistent formatting, >>>> and examples that *users* can still paste into their sessions where >>>> plt refers to the real matplotlib. >>> It's actually easier for users to paste the non-doctestable examples >>> since they don't have the >>> markers and any stdout the examples >>> produce as a byproduct. >>> >> I'm with Robert here. It's definitely easier as an example without the >> >>>>. I also don't see the utility of being able to have the >> matplotlib code as tests of anything. We're not testing matplotlib here >> and any behavior that matplotlib relies on (and hence tests) should be >> captured in a test for that behavior separate from matplotlib code. > > To be clear, these aren't tests of the numpy code. The tests would be > to make sure the examples still run. > Right. I just don't think effort should be put into making examples using matplotlib run as doctests. If the behavior is important, numpy should have a standalone test for it.
Ryan -- Ryan May Graduate Research Assistant School of Meteorology University of Oklahoma _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
