tests: use an easy to include setup file #541
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When wanting to run a specific test/testset, it's easy to copy-pase it
into the REPL, but it can be annoying to find the setup-code, like
constants or functions defined usually at the top of the test file.
All this setup code is here put in test/setup.jl, so that it's always
predictable (and easy) what one has to do to inject to required
dependencies in the REPL: `include("test/setup.jl")`.
|
In Hecke (and possibly Nemo) we implemented
Hecke.test_module(file, false)
or similar, running only that file in the same session...
…On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 06:10:27AM -0800, Rafael Fourquet wrote:
When wanting to run a specific test/testset, it's easy to copy-pase it
into the REPL, but it can be annoying to find the setup-code, like
constants or functions defined usually at the top of the test file.
All this setup code is here put in test/setup.jl, so that it's always
predictable (and easy) what one has to do to inject to required
dependencies in the REPL: `include("test/setup.jl")`.
Another nice thing to have is to be able to run one single test file. But it's currently not always supported (e.g. `include("test/generic/Matrix-test.jl")` won't work). So I also propose to conditionally include the "setup.jl" file at the top of test files (which need setup), so that they can be run independently. I currently did it only for "Matrix-test.jl" and will continue if the idea is supported. This looks like
```julia
if ***@***.*** SETUP
include("../setup.jl")
end
```
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
#541
-- Commit Summary --
* tests: use an easy to include setup file
* conditionally include setup.jl for individual file loading
-- File Changes --
M test/AbstractAlgebra-test.jl (4)
M test/Modules-test.jl (20)
M test/generic/DirectSum-test.jl (2)
M test/generic/Map-test.jl (11)
M test/generic/Matrix-test.jl (160)
M test/generic/MatrixAlgebra-test.jl (78)
M test/generic/Module-test.jl (15)
M test/generic/Perm-test.jl (2)
M test/runtests.jl (12)
A test/setup.jl (230)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/Nemocas/AbstractAlgebra.jl/pull/541.patch
https://github.com/Nemocas/AbstractAlgebra.jl/pull/541.diff
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#541
|
|
Yes, I had a similar idea for a future PR, mimicking what is available in Julia: |
|
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 06:30:55AM -0800, Rafael Fourquet wrote:
Yes, I had a similar idea for a future PR, mimicking what is available in Julia: `Base.runtests(list_of_test_names)`.
Difference being that "our" version can run selected tests in the same
julia or not.
runtests can not
… --
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#541 (comment)
|
I noticed yes. I can see the usefulness of "in the same julia" when hacking a routine at the REPL and having the tests take the changes into account immediately, do you have another use case? |
|
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 07:41:13AM -0800, Rafael Fourquet wrote:
> Difference being that "our" version can run selected tests in the same julia or not.
I noticed yes. I can see the usefulness of "in the same julia" when hacking a routine at the REPL and having the tests take the changes into account immediately, do you have another use case?
Yes/ no:
using global assignments one can recover intermediate results in failing
tests to invesigate them in the REPL.
So its more of the same...
… --
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#541 (comment)
|
|
Addtionally, it is faster since you don't have to compile everything over and over again. |
|
Makes sense, thanks. |
|
The problem this was trying to address is mostly solved for me with |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When wanting to run a specific test/testset, it's easy to copy-pase it
into the REPL, but it can be annoying to find the setup-code, like
constants or functions defined usually at the top of the test file.
All this setup code is here put in test/setup.jl, so that it's always
predictable (and easy) what one has to do to inject to required
dependencies in the REPL:
include("test/setup.jl").Another nice thing to have is to be able to run one single test file. But it's currently not always supported (e.g.
include("test/generic/Matrix-test.jl")won't work). So I also propose to conditionally include the "setup.jl" file at the top of test files (which need setup), so that they can be run independently. I currently did it only for "Matrix-test.jl" and will continue if the idea is supported. This looks like