#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:
---------------------------------------------------+------------------------
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]
> 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.
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 (by SimonKing):
The patchbot has correctly applied both patches (I just checked) and finds
that all tests pass. Since the patch changes formatting ("EXAMPLE:"
becomes "EXAMPLES::" with double colon), I built the documentation.
I apologize for some misformatting that my patch has introduced (e.g., in
codomain()). This is not fixed yet.
What shall we do? Shall I fix the misformattings in my patch? Or shall you
fix it by updating the reviewer patch?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9235#comment:13>
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.
