[Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py
Fri Jan 9 01:19:46 CST 2009
Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
> 2009/1/9 David Cournapeau <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Christopher Hanley <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> I do not expect the trunk to always work. I even expect it to have
>>> bugs. However, I do not expect there to be test failures for known
>>> reasons that result in wasSuccessful() returning false. This is a bad
>>> programming practice. It creates work for people trying to figure out
>>> what is wrong when the answer is already know.
>> Well, I don't agree it is bad practice: it is not ideal, yes, but I
>> don't think using KnownFailure is much better. My rationale being that
>> known failures are almost never worked on because it does not bug
>> anyone anymore, and it is very easy to forget about them - AFAICS,
>> most numpy/scipy known failures have never been worked on after being
>> tagged as such. I don't think we have a good system for those cases,
>> be it known failure - or just failing.
> I agree with you point of view, but I also have sympathy for
> Cristopher's situation.
Yes, it is not a black and white situation - I first misunderstood
Christopher situation because of the given context of tracking numpy
changes. I can see why it is annoying - but it gives me important
information (like for example the fact that solaris does not have the
same formatting issues than linux and mac os X thanks to recent bug
As Robert said, BTS is supposedly a better system for this for this kind
of things - but at least for me, trac is so slow and painful to use that
I try to avoid it as much as possible.
More information about the Numpy-discussion