[yt-dev] A plea for failing tests

[Britton Smith]

Here's something I forgot to mention yesterday.  This trello card has a
checklist of the analysis modules tests, so you can see the progress.

https://trello.com/c/Ij4rFExx/41-add-testing-for-all-analysis-modules

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20141123/cdc2263f/attachment.html>