#9235: Doctest coverage for sage.categories.homset
---------------------------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner: nthiery
Type: defect | Status:
needs_review
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-5.7
Component: categories | Resolution:
Keywords: doctest coverage homset, days45 | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Niles
Johnson, Travis Scrimshaw
Authors: Simon King | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
---------------------------------------------------+------------------------
Changes (by tscrim):
* keywords: doctest coverage homset => doctest coverage homset, days45
* reviewer: Niles Johnson => Niles Johnson, Travis Scrimshaw
Old description:
> The doctest coverage for sage.categories.homset was
> {{{
> SCORE devel/sage-main/sage/categories/homset.py: 52% (13 of 25)
> }}}
>
> My patch covers all but two methods:
>
> * get_action_c
> * coerce_map_from_c
>
> These two return (by default) None. Is there a good ''indirect'' doctest
> for these two? I am not familiar with {{{get_action}}}, and I don't know
> what {{{coerce_map_from_c}}} does, compared with {{{_coerce_map_from_}}}.
> Perhaps the reviewer can explain it to me, so that I or s/he can add the
> two missing tests?
>
> == Apply ==
>
> 1. [attachment: 9235_doctest_homset.patch]
>
> Since the reviewer patch changes code, I think it should be moved to a
> separate ticket.
New description:
The doctest coverage for sage.categories.homset was
{{{
SCORE devel/sage-main/sage/categories/homset.py: 52% (13 of 25)
}}}
My patch covers all but two methods:
* get_action_c
* coerce_map_from_c
These two return (by default) None. Is there a good ''indirect'' doctest
for these two? I am not familiar with {{{get_action}}}, and I don't know
what {{{coerce_map_from_c}}} does, compared with {{{_coerce_map_from_}}}.
Perhaps the reviewer can explain it to me, so that I or s/he can add the
two missing tests?
== Apply ==
1. [attachment: 9235_doctest_homset.patch]
2. [attachment: trac_9235-doctest_homset-review-ts.patch]
Since the reviewer patch changes code, I think it should be moved to a
separate ticket.
--
Comment:
Hey Simon,
I've uploaded a review patch which goes through and brings the rest of the
documentation up to current standards and added the tests to the old
coercion model methods with nice warning blocks. Otherwise looks good and
I think we should push the actual deprecations to when we completely
remove the old coercion model. If you agree with my changes, feel free to
set this to positive review.
Thanks,[[BR]]
Travis
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9235#comment:12>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
