Re: [Numpy-discussion] More pending test framework changes (please give feedback)
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Alan McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. All doctests in NumPy will have the numpy module available in their execution context as np. 2. Turn on the normalized whitespace option for all doctests. Having a doctest fail just because there's a space after your result seems like an unnecessary hassle for documenters. 3. Output will be ignored for each doctest expected output line that contains #random. I figured this can serve both as an ignore flag and indication to the reader that the listed output may differ from what they see if they execute the associated command. So you would be able to do: random.random() 0.1234567890 #random: output may differ on your system And have the example executed but not cause a failure. You could also use this to ignore the SomeObject at 0x1234ABCD output from plot methods as well. Since I didn't see any objections, these changes are now committed. I'll be updating some doctests to take advantage of them later today. Alan ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] More pending test framework changes (please give feedback)
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Alan McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since I didn't see any objections, these changes are now committed. I'll be updating some doctests to take advantage of them later today. Excellent. Thanks, -- Jarrod Millman Computational Infrastructure for Research Labs 10 Giannini Hall, UC Berkeley phone: 510.643.4014 http://cirl.berkeley.edu/ ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] More pending test framework changes (please give feedback)
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Alan McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Alan McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. All doctests in NumPy will have the numpy module available in their execution context as np. 2. Turn on the normalized whitespace option for all doctests. Having a doctest fail just because there's a space after your result seems like an unnecessary hassle for documenters. 3. Output will be ignored for each doctest expected output line that contains #random. I figured this can serve both as an ignore flag and indication to the reader that the listed output may differ from what they see if they execute the associated command. So you would be able to do: random.random() 0.1234567890 #random: output may differ on your system And have the example executed but not cause a failure. You could also use this to ignore the SomeObject at 0x1234ABCD output from plot methods as well. Since I didn't see any objections, these changes are now committed. I'll be updating some doctests to take advantage of them later today. I note that a lot of unit test files import tons of specific functions, numpy.core, etc., etc. Is there any reason not to fix things up to import numpy as np from numpy.testing import * I fixed one file this way, but I wonder if we shouldn't make all of them work like that. Chuck ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] More pending test framework changes (please give feedback)
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I note that a lot of unit test files import tons of specific functions, numpy.core, etc., etc. Is there any reason not to fix things up to import numpy as np from numpy.testing import * I fixed one file this way, but I wonder if we shouldn't make all of them work like that. Personally, I prefer the imports to be as simple as possible, but I managed to restrain myself from cleaning up test module imports when I was making my changes. ;) If making them somewhat standardized is desirable, I might as well do it while I'm cleaning up and fixing tests. ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] More pending test framework changes (please give feedback)
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Alan McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I note that a lot of unit test files import tons of specific functions, numpy.core, etc., etc. Is there any reason not to fix things up to import numpy as np from numpy.testing import * I fixed one file this way, but I wonder if we shouldn't make all of them work like that. Personally, I prefer the imports to be as simple as possible, but I managed to restrain myself from cleaning up test module imports when I was making my changes. ;) If making them somewhat standardized is desirable, I might as well do it while I'm cleaning up and fixing tests. A lot of the imports seem to have just grown over the years, some even contain duplicates. So I think cleaning up would be a good idea if no one objects. Chuck ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] More pending test framework changes (please give feedback)
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A lot of the imports seem to have just grown over the years, some even contain duplicates. So I think cleaning up would be a good idea if no one objects. Ok. As a pre-emptive clarification, I'll only be tweaking imports in unit test files--I don't want to mess with any of the magic that goes on in the package imports. ;) ___ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
