#10043: Complete rewrite of LP solver interfaces
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
   Reporter:  ncohen              |       Owner:  ncohen    
       Type:  enhancement         |      Status:  needs_work
   Priority:  major               |   Milestone:  sage-4.6  
  Component:  linear programming  |    Keywords:            
     Author:  Nathann Cohen       |    Upstream:  N/A       
   Reviewer:                      |      Merged:            
Work_issues:                      |  
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------

Comment(by malb):

 Replying to [comment:6 ncohen]:
 > Got it. I will document the expected INPUT/OUTPUT, but do you really
 think
 > doctests are necessary at this level ? As you say, it will be indirect
 as these
 > methods are all cdef (sage -coverage answers 100% on these files because
 of that),
 > so as there is a wealth of methods testing them all in the graph/ and
 numerical/
 > directory... That's an honest question, as I do not see how to write
 smarter
 > doctests than just a short example of how LP is used in Sage, and
 copy/paste it in
 > each function as the same code would test them all...

 There should at least be doctests in the generic backend class, which
 highlight how these cdef functions are used. My reason for asking for
 doctests for all functions in the instantiations is that e.g. the graph
 class will only test the default LP backend and would not check the other
 (optional) backends. I'm happy to have the same doctests in all
 instantiations except that a different solver is used each time. In fact,
 we could write a template file which has all the doctests in it, and one
 string replace of e.g. "YOUR_SOLVER" with e.g. "SCIP" would make it easy
 to have nice coverage of all the functions. Also, the more low level a
 doctest is, the easier it is to debug a failure.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10043#comment:7>
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.

Reply via email to