[Numpy-discussion] ticket 788: possible blocker

Eric Firing efiring@hawaii....
Tue May 13 16:39:09 CDT 2008


Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
> Robert Kern wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Travis E. Oliphant
>> <oliphant@enthought.com> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>>  Besides,  having a "test-per-checkin" is not the proper mapping in my
>>>  mind.   I'd rather see whole check-ins devoted to testing large pieces
>>>  of code rather than spend all unit-test foo on a rigid policy of
>>>  "regression" testing each check-in.
>>>     
>> Stéfan is proposing "test-per-bugfix", not "test-per-checkin". That is
>> eminently feasible. You need to do some kind of testing to be sure
>> that you actually fixed the problem. It is simply *not* *that* *hard*
>> to write that in unit test form.
>>   
> That is not true.  You *don't* need to do testing to be sure you 
> actually fixed the problem in some cases....  Looking at the code is 
> enough.   Like the case we are talking about.

I agree that this one was pretty obvious, and the value of a dedicated 
test is questionable, but I added a test patch and data file to the 
ticket anyway.  Of course the test needed to be tested, and I have done 
half of that: I verified that it passes now (although some others 
don't).  I had already done this manually to verify my original 
suggested patch, and then again to verify Travis's actual revision as 
soon as I saw it. I have not gone back to verify that the test correctly 
identifies the original problem; but it is the same procedure I used to 
track the problem down in the first place.

I hope this leaves the various hackles reasonably smooth.

One last question for Travis: Is there a reason why PyArray_EquivTypes 
is *not* used in PyArray_CastToType?  If so, a comment in the code might 
be helpful.

Eric


More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list