#11812: traceback with load and attach of .sage files
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: mstreng | Owner: jason
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.7.2
Component: misc | Keywords:
Work_issues: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Author:
Merged: | Dependencies:
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Comment(by mstreng):
Replying to [comment:7 leif]:
> * `if preparse_to_file == None:` should be `if preparse_to_file
`'''`is`'''` None:`.
> * There's some mark-up missing in the docstrings (also in parts you
didn't add).
Thanks, all corrected (I think).
> * In docstrings, Python identifiers (constants, function and variable
names etc.) and the like should be enclosed in double backticks
({{{``name``}}}, which means Courier / typewriter font); {{{`name`}}} in
contrast yields typesetting in ''math'' mode.
Not sure what you mean: I don't see where in this docstring single
backticks are or should be used. I did add some double backticks though.
> I'm not sure what your problem with doctests involving tracebacks
exactly was; we have a couple of such tests (not needing to call `sage` or
use the `PExpect` interface); they just look slightly different to what
you get in a real Sage session.
The problem with the doctest is that I couldn't create a test that really
checks whether #11812 was fixed:
* The content of the traceback in the example {{{sage:
attach('myfile.sage')}}} on line 1573 of
[attachment:trac_11812-traceback_attach.patch] is ignored in doctests
according to [http://docs.python.org/library/doctest.html#what-about-
exceptions this link]. And indeed, that example passes the doctests even
with #11812 not applied.
* The test with pexpect in that attachment seemed to work on my computer,
but doesn't really, according to
[http://patchbot.sagemath.org/log/11812/linux/ubuntu/hardy/sage.math.washington.edu/2011-09-22%2008:56:39%20-0700
patchbot]. The problem is that I don't quite understand which sage
installation is used in this test.
So I had to remove the test. As the example isn't tested anyway, I decided
to keep things simple by removing that as well and adding a few
explanatory comments to the code.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11812#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 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.
