On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Chris Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Aaron Meurer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> Do people think that there would be enough work involved in a >> potential GSoC project to improve SymPy-Bot? Right now, there are 33 >> open issues for it (https://github.com/sympy/sympy-bot/issues). Most >> of these are simple bugs, but many things are non-trivial, such as >> setting a system up that can serve out requests (the "sympy-bot work" >> idea) and improving the formatting of the test output. >> >> Even with those ideas, I feel that it's not enough, though such a >> project would be useful to have. Can anyone think of more things that >> could go in such a project to make it sufficient, so we can add it to >> the ideas list? >> > > Doing a coverage fingerprint -- report lines that are added or changed that > are not covered.
>From what I understand, you've already got a script that does this, right? Maybe you could clean it up and submit it for inclusion as part of the coverage_test script (maybe as something like `./bin/coverage_test.py --compare`, which would compare against an already existing built coverage). It would then be easy to adapt that into SymPy bot. Also look to see if the coverage module has something like this already supported. Aaron Meurer -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" 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/sympy?hl=en.
