#20323: Common TestSuite for MIP backends
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: mkoeppe | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-7.2
Component: numerical | Resolution:
Keywords: lp | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/mkoeppe/common_testsuite_for_mip_backends|
407532db90231cb924b73fc87fa6e252aff33c8d
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by mkoeppe):
Replying to [comment:17 vdelecroix]:
> You should not implement `_test_*` method that modifies the object. I am
not sure there is any control in which order things are executed.
As I pointed out in the comment above `_test_add_linear_constraints` in
comment 13, these instance methods are written in a way that the order
does not matter.
The second example uses a class method and runs its tests on fresh
instances, so it does not make modifications.
If it is policy that `_test` methods cannot modify the object, then I can
rewrite all tests as class methods like in the second example.
I would rather like to avoid using doctests (in fact I'm trying to replace
the superficial, copy-paste-driven testing that is there now); and
`TestSuite` seems like exactly the right thing to enforce the API of
concrete implementations of an abstract class.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20323#comment:18>
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
