[TIP] Nose and doctests in extension modules...
fperez.net at gmail.com
Thu Jun 19 23:51:34 PDT 2008
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:07 PM, C. Titus Brown <ctb at msu.edu> wrote:
> -> I really appreciate your help, I just think that the current situation
> -> is still not satisfactory. For context, all of this concerns NumPy
> -> and SciPy: there's lots of interest in those projects in using more
> -> doctests, and we recently switched to using nose for all numpy/scipy
> -> testing. But numpy/scipy have gobs of extension code, and adequate
> -> support for nose finding doctests in extension code is really a huge
> -> issue for us in the long run.
> I can't work on this myself, but:
> Scientific code depends HEAVILY on C extensions, so this is really
> (Fernando, if it isn't fixed by SciPy, let's sit down and fix it
Sounds like a good plan. I'm doing a fair amount of nose related
work right now for ipython, so there's a slim chance I might get to
it. But if I don't, we can pound on it at scipy.
With all due respect to Jason, the 'put the doctests elsewhere'
approach is simply not acceptable, since doctests *belong* in
docstrings as an integral part of a function's documentation. So this
needs to be fixed, I'm afraid.
More information about the testing-in-python