#10952: better numerical accuracy testing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------+----
Reporter: robertwb |
Owner: mvngu
Type: enhancement |
Status: positive_review
Priority: critical |
Milestone: sage-4.7.2
Component: doctest |
Keywords: sd32
Work_issues: |
Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Jason Grout, Mariah Lenox, William Stein, John Palmieri |
Author: Robert Bradshaw, Rob Beezer
Merged: |
Dependencies:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------+----
Changes (by robertwb):
* status: needs_review => positive_review
Comment:
Replying to [comment:40 leif]:
> Replying to [comment:39 jhpalmieri]:
> > I don't see anything wrong with more complicated regular expressions,
but I like regular expressions. So leave it as is if you want.
>
> Yes, only
> {{{
> sage: foo # tol 1ee7
> anything
> }}}
> should always pass. ;-)
Currently, it raises an error indicating that the *doctest* itself is bad.
> > Meanwhile, the output for failures using tolerances isn't nice,
compared to other sorts of failures [...] [[BR]]
> > Notice that the line number is missing and the traceback is present.
I'm attaching a referee patch which tries to fix this. Please take a
look.
>
> Haven't tested your patch (nor looked at it), but the output you gave
looks much better.
>
> [[BR]]
>
> > Since the whole ticket had a positive review earlier, I think if
you're happy with my changes, you can switch it back to that status.
>
> I won't object, though I in general don't like the idea of adding code
(regardless how small the overhead or impact might be) unconditionally,
i.e., if there's no need to do so.
>
> We have similar situations all around, where everybody adds "just a
little", IMHO.
Yes, it's a tradeoff between adding "just a little" python parsing
overhead to the testing infrastructure or "just a little" human parsing
overhead to the testing infrastructure. I'd rather put the burden on
machines than developers in this case.
The reviewer patches look good, certainly an improvement, so I'm setting
this back to positive review unless there's something else that needs to
be taken care of.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10952#comment:41>
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.
