#16091: A missing obvious case for BIBD
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner:
ncohen | Status: positive_review
Type: | Milestone: sage-6.2
enhancement | Resolution:
Priority: major | Merged in:
Component: | Reviewers: Kannappan Sampath
combinatorics | Work issues:
Keywords: | Commit:
Authors: | e722cb1fea07de2c9d2576c36b359ee4db82fb44
Nathann Cohen | Stopgaps:
Report Upstream: N/A |
Branch: |
u/ncohen/16091 |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by ncohen):
Helloooooooooo !!
The beginning looks right, but when doing a review you should also check
that all doctests pass : those are the examples of Sage code that we add
in the doc, i.e. what comes after "A trivial BIBD" in the branch.
Each time you review a patch, make sure that what the patch changes/adds
is tested in one such example, and that it returns what it shoud :
by running "sage -t file.py", you tests all those lines. That's how we can
spot a LOT of bugs before a release, as all functions of Sage are tested
in this way. If you change something very fundamental in the code and make
a mistake, very often the doctests of all functions that use the code that
you changed will be buggy, and you can spot that by running "sage -t" on
related files.
You can also run "sage -tp X file.py" where X is the number of CPU that
you have,if you have many of them.
Nathann
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16091#comment:8>
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
