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
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@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@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
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@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@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@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@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Brian O'Shea <bwoshea@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a great idea, and I'd be happy to help out. Which analysis modules need tests?
Any analysis module with a "tests" folder has at least some level of testing. goldbaum at ROUS in ~/Documents/yt-hg/yt/analysis_modules on yt at tip ☿ find . -type d -maxdepth 1 . ./absorption_spectrum ./cosmological_observation ./halo_analysis ./halo_finding ./halo_mass_function ./level_sets ./particle_trajectories ./photon_simulator ./ppv_cube ./radmc3d_export ./spectral_integrator ./star_analysis ./sunrise_export ./sunyaev_zeldovich ./two_point_functions goldbaum at ROUS in ~/Documents/yt-hg/yt/analysis_modules on yt at tip ☿ find . -type d -name "tests" ./halo_analysis/tests ./halo_finding/tests ./photon_simulator/tests ./ppv_cube/tests ./sunyaev_zeldovich/tests
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels@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@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@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@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
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@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@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@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@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@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
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@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
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@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
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Brian O'Shea <bwoshea@gmail.com> wrote: 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@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@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@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
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@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@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
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@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
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Brian O'Shea <bwoshea@gmail.com> wrote: 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@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@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@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________ yt-dev mailing list yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
participants (5)
-
Brian O'Shea -
Britton Smith -
Cameron Hummels -
Matthew Turk -
Nathan Goldbaum