[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: automated (or otherwise) tests for graphics code?
From: |
Ben Abbott |
Subject: |
Re: automated (or otherwise) tests for graphics code? |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:31:02 -0400 |
On Thursday, October 16, 2008, at 01:45PM, "John W. Eaton" <address@hidden>
wrote:
>We seem to be having a lot of regressions in the graphics code
>lately, so maybe it is time to start thinking of some way to provide
>tests for these functions. Unfortunately, I don't have any good way
>to do automatic tests for most of the graphics functions since the
>results are visual. But at least we could have an informal agreement
>that no changes should be pushed unless a make check works and also
>all the graphics demos run successfully. I know that running all the
>demos could be tedious, but it is also troublesome to have to keep
>chasing bugs after nearly every change in the plotting functions...
>
>To make it easier to run demos, I added a new function called rundemos
>that can be used this way:
>
> rundemos plot
>
>to run all the demos in all the files in a given directory in the path
>(in this case, the plot subdirectory). Without any arguments,
>rundemos runs all demos in all .m files in the load path.
>
>Comments?
>
>jwe
>
There have been some instances of coding errors respecting the graphics sources
recently. These bugs could be identified by running tests/demos where no
graphics are produced. Might the rundemos() script be able to run in that way
and be added to "make check"?
In any event, your suggestion is a good one. I'll be using it often.
Ben