Hi David, On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote:
<SNIP> > 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 something we need to learn from. > I must admit, reading that Wolfram Research page, the statement that "The > standards of correctness for Mathematica are certainly much higher than for > typical mathematical proofs" is extremely stupid, when they don't define > "typical" and they provide no evidence of it. (It was not me he spotted > that, but it is extremely dumb thing to write) Perhaps this [1] could explain that dumb statement. > But really the specification, implementation and testing should be > done by different people. In practice, that is not going to happen in Sage, > though I would not be surprised if that happens with Mathematica, since it > is pretty standard technique in software engineering. That is what I have been trying to do with Nathann Cohen's graph theory patches. He implements features, I write tests and documentation and try to break his code. That way, at least two people know about the new feature that's going into Sage. I recently wrote a reviewer patch [2] that is more than twice the size of his feature patch. So far, I have yet to hear Nathann complain about the number and size of the tests I wrote corresponding to his new features. Of course, I also tried to do code coverage testing: each execution branch should be tested. [1] http://www1.qainsight.net:8080/2006/08/31/SoftwareDevelopmentComicWithQAAddition.aspx [2] http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8922 -- Regards Minh Van Nguyen -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
