Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-09 Thread Stéfan van der Walt
2009/1/9 David Cournapeau : > 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. We are running Trac 10.2 from November 2006, so it is quite possible that some

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread Stéfan van der Walt
2009/1/9 Robert Kern : > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 01:19, Stéfan van der Walt wrote: > >> I think we should urge developers to run the test suite this way, so >> that we remain aware of failures, even if they are decorated. > > I don't think we should use unit tests as a bug tracker. We have Trac. >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread David Cournapeau
Stéfan van der Walt wrote: > 2009/1/9 David Cournapeau : > >> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Christopher Hanley 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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread Robert Kern
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 01:19, Stéfan van der Walt wrote: > I think we should urge developers to run the test suite this way, so > that we remain aware of failures, even if they are decorated. I don't think we should use unit tests as a bug tracker. We have Trac. Each known-failing test (or group

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread Stéfan van der Walt
2009/1/9 David Cournapeau : > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Christopher Hanley 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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread David Cournapeau
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:21 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Christopher Hanley 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 wasSuccess

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread David Cournapeau
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Christopher Hanley 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.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread Christopher Hanley
David Cournapeau wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Christopher Hanley wrote: >> David Cournapeau wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Christopher Hanley >>> wrote: David Cournapeau wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Christopher Hanley > wrote: >> Hi, >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread Robert Kern
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:37, Christopher Hanley wrote: > Hi, > > I've committed the following change to test_print.py to fix one of the > tests. > > Index: test_print.py > === > --- test_print.py (revision 6302) > +++ test_prin

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread Robert Kern
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 15:26, David Cournapeau wrote: > Personally, I don't like knownfailure much anyway: I feel like it is > too easy to tag one test known failure, and then nobody cares about it > anymore. Those formatting problems were already problems before - the > tests only show the probl

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread David Cournapeau
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Christopher Hanley wrote: > David Cournapeau wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Christopher Hanley wrote: >>> David Cournapeau wrote: On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Christopher Hanley wrote: > Hi, > > I've committed the following cha

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread Christopher Hanley
David Cournapeau wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Christopher Hanley wrote: >> David Cournapeau wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Christopher Hanley >>> wrote: Hi, I've committed the following change to test_print.py to fix one of the tests. >>> Hi Chris

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread David Cournapeau
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Christopher Hanley wrote: > David Cournapeau wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Christopher Hanley wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've committed the following change to test_print.py to fix one of the >>> tests. >>> >> >> Hi Christopher, >> >> Please do not modify t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread Christopher Hanley
David Cournapeau wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Christopher Hanley wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've committed the following change to test_print.py to fix one of the >> tests. >> > > Hi Christopher, > > Please do not modify those tests - they are supposed to fail, > > David >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread David Cournapeau
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Christopher Hanley wrote: > Hi, > > I've committed the following change to test_print.py to fix one of the > tests. > Hi Christopher, Please do not modify those tests - they are supposed to fail, David ___ Numpy-discuss

[Numpy-discussion] change made to test_print.py

2009-01-08 Thread Christopher Hanley
Hi, I've committed the following change to test_print.py to fix one of the tests. Index: test_print.py === --- test_print.py (revision 6302) +++ test_print.py (working copy) @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ else: