[Numpy-discussion] Doctest items
Charles R Harris
Tue Jul 1 18:03:22 CDT 2008
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Fernando Perez <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Pauli Virtanen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > But it's a custom tweak to doctest, so it might break at some point in
> > the future, and I don't love the monkeypatching here...
> Welcome to the joys of extending doctest/unittest. They hardcoded so
> much stuff in there that the only way to reuse that code is by
> copy/paste/monkeypatch. It's absolutely atrocious.
> >> We could always just make the plotting section one of those "it's just
> >> an example not a doctest" things and remove the ">>>" (since it doesn't
> >> appear to provide any useful test coverage or anything).
> > If possible, I'd like other possibilities be considered first before
> > jumping this route. I think it would be nice to retain the ability to run
> > also the matplotlib examples as (optional) doctests, to make sure also
> > they execute correctly. Also, using two different markups in the
> > documentation to work around a shortcoming of doctest is IMHO not very
> > elegant.
> How about a much simpler approach? Just pre-populate the globals dict
> where doctest executes with an object called 'plt' that basically does
> def noop(*a,**k): pass
> class dummy():
> def __getattr__(self,k): return noop
> plt = dummy()
> This would ensure that all calls to plt.anything() silently succeed in
> the doctests. Granted, we're not testing matplotlib, but it has the
> benefit of simplicity and of letting us keep consistent formatting,
> and examples that *users* can still paste into their sessions where
> plt refers to the real matplotlib.
> Just an idea...
That was my thought, but Robert didn't like it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Numpy-discussion