#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 tscrim):
From taking a quick look at what you are testing, it looks more like you
should have a separate file with test functions that takes a backend,
creates an instance of it, and runs the basic tests, and then have a
"master" function which takes the backend and feeds it to each of those
functions (or some small variant of this). IMO, this is a better way to do
the things that you want, and it means for each (new) backend, you only
have to add a test to pass it to the "master" function. It also has a bit
of a fringe benefit of consolidating the testing of the backends.
It is possible the user will want to run `TestSuite` on a particular
instance, and will be quite surprised if the object has mutated. Another
valid option would be to make a copy of the instance and do the mutations
to that.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20323#comment:19>
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.
