[Numpy-discussion] nose changes checked in
Thu Jun 19 13:36:12 CDT 2008
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 11:59, Alan McIntyre <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Robert Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> - The signature of numpy.test in 1.2 will be backward compatible with
>>> 1.1, and it will at least return some indication of failure (if not
>>> the same object as in 1.1). This will, by the way, make it different
>>> from the signature and behavior of scipy.test.
>> scipy.test() should be made to match numpy.test(). scipy.testing was a
>> staging ground for the nose changes in numpy, not a separate branch of
> Ok. Jarrod mentioned that the intent is to change SciPy over to use
> numpy.testing (and remove scipy.testing) once NumPy's nose transition
> is complete. Is that something that something that will happen
> simultaneously in the next release, or will SciPy lag behind one
No scipy was released with the new scipy.testing stuff, so scipy
itself is the only customer. We can transition ourselves.
> Either way, at some point in the next few weeks I'll try
> making that change locally just to see if it turns up any surprising
> requirements in the NumPy side.
>> For my preference, we should accept the old argument signature with a
>> deprecation warning but prefer the current signature. This is a little
>> hairy, but such is life with deprecations.
> Do you want a blanket warning, or only a warning if test() gets
> keyword arguments from the old signature?
The latter, please. I know it's tricky, but it is doable.
> Also, since the numpy.testing.ScipyTestCase and ScipyTest classes
> already had deprecation warnings in 1.1, I'll leave them out in 1.2,
> if that's ok.
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the Numpy-discussion