[yt-dev] A plea for failing tests

[Britton Smith]

This is something I've been working on for a while now.  I will at least do:
- the rest of halo analysis
- cosmological observation (cosmology splices, light rays, light cones)
- level sets
- spectral integrator

Halo mass function has actually already been done, but currently resides in
the answer testing framework and so should probably be moved.

Also, kudos to John Zuhone, who wrote tests for everything or almost
everything that he put in analysis modules.

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> In IRC, you identified that you were having problems with the star
> particle spectrum generator, the absorption spectrum generator, and
> that a bunch of the rest of the code was "broken to users."  We've
> been trying to balance bringing 2.x stuff to 3.0 and doing more
> development in 3.0, but it's a delicate balance. As I indicated in an
> email to yt-dev a few minutes ago, we're trying to aid in the
> conversion of 2.x analysis modules to 3.0 with more tests of the code.
> Anything you can contribute on this front would be very much
> appreciated!
>
> -Matt
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Brian O'Shea <bwoshea at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is a great idea, and I'd be happy to help out.  Which analysis
> modules
> > need tests?
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> It will at least provide a reminder (each time we run the tests) to all
> of
> >> us what needs to be fixed before the full conversion of the code from
> 2.x to
> >> 3.0 is complete.  These tests should be relatively straightforward, in
> that
> >> all we're really doing is just "running the code" for these analysis
> >> modules.  I'm going to try my hand at a few of them, and if others want
> to
> >> jump in on ones they are comfortable with, that would be awesome.
> >>
> >> Cameron
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Cameron and I were chatting, and it looks like only 5/19 of the
> >>> analysis modules have tests.  I think it would be really valuable to
> >>> have tests -- even failing ones -- so that we can start finishing the
> >>> job of porting to yt-3.0 all of the analysis modules.
> >>>
> >>> So what do you think -- should we start writing some tests designed to
> >>> fail?
> >>>
> >>> -Matt
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> yt-dev mailing list
> >>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cameron Hummels
> >> Postdoctoral Researcher
> >> Steward Observatory
> >> University of Arizona
> >> http://chummels.org
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> yt-dev mailing list
> >> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > yt-dev mailing list
> > yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20141122/ce4ae996/attachment.htm>