[Numpy-discussion] A couple of testing issues

Alan McIntyre alan.mcintyre@gmail....
Wed Jul 9 14:19:30 CDT 2008

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Anne Archibald
<peridot.faceted@gmail.com> wrote:
>> - Test functions and methods will only be picked up based on name if
>> they begin with "test"; "check_*" will no longer be seen as a test
>> function.
> Is it possible to induce nose to pick these up and, if not actually
> run them, warn about them? It's not so good to have some tests
> silently not being run...

Having nose pick up "check_" functions as tests may interfere with
SciPy testing; it looks like there are a couple dozen
functions/methods named that way in the SciPy tree.  I didn't look at
all of them, though; it could be that some are tests that still need

Since I'm looking at coverage (including test code coverage), any
tests that don't get run will be found, at least while I'm working on
tests.  Still, it might not hurt to have something automated looking
for potentially missed tests for 1.2.  That would also help with
third-party code that depends on NumPy for testing, since they
probably don't have the luxury of someone able to spend all their time
worrying over test coverage.

I can make a pass through all the test_* modules in the source tree
under test and post a warning if "def check_" is found in them before
handing things over to nose.    Anyone else have thoughts on this?

More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list