Suggestion: each participant goes through a file of his/her own choice and
makes sure it has 100% doctest coverage. Reading the source of the possibly
unfamiliar file is also encouraged.
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99
_www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb
_jab: martinr...@jabber.ccc.de
- Robert
>
> Sounds like a good idea--I'll be able to participate in the morning
> at least. Do we want to require all cdef functions to have doctests?
> Also, how to test them?
I vote to require. Presumably all cdef functions are exercised by
some part of the python accessible code (otherwise, why are they
present?). Doctests in cdef docstrings are found by the doctesting
architecture and executed. So they will be tested, just not in the
most straightforward way :)
Nick
Of course, it'd be nice if every function had ample documentation,
but I'd rather have 100% coverage on all user-accessible functions in
two files, than 100% coverage in one file for def/cpdef and cdef
functions. Also, often the "inderect" tests for cdef functions seem
to be redundant with the doctests exposed functions.
- Robert
Of course, it'd be nice if every function had ample documentation,
but I'd rather have 100% coverage on all user-accessible functions in
two files, than 100% coverage in one file for def/cpdef and cdef
functions. Also, often the "inderect" tests for cdef functions seem
to be redundant with the doctests exposed functions.
I'm not advocating that no cdef functions should have doctests,
certainly things like _add_c_impl should.
- Robert