[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: tests in log-scale plots
From: |
c. |
Subject: |
Re: tests in log-scale plots |
Date: |
Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:45:15 +0200 |
On 6 Sep 2011, at 16:37, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 6-Sep-2011, Carlo de Falco wrote:
>
> Also, unless there is an unexpected error, your test doesn't catch
> incorrect results without manual inspection, does it?
actually it does, octave segfaults when that test is run
> I think that if
> a test can't catch incorrect results, then it should be a demo instead.
OK
> It's fine to add a demo. But tests should only succeed or fail, not
> produce any output or graphics.
I agree, I think the correct way to do this is to use
figure (1232, "visible", "off");
and then check for properties of the figure as suggested by Kai
> jwe
c.
- Re: tests in log-scale plots, (continued)
- Re: tests in log-scale plots, Ben Abbott, 2011/09/06
- Re: tests in log-scale plots, c., 2011/09/06
- Re: tests in log-scale plots, Ben Abbott, 2011/09/06
- Re: tests in log-scale plots, John W. Eaton, 2011/09/06
- Re: tests in log-scale plots, c., 2011/09/06
- Re: tests in log-scale plots, Ben Abbott, 2011/09/06
tests in log-scale plots, John W. Eaton, 2011/09/06
- Re: tests in log-scale plots,
c. <=
Re: tests in log-scale plots, Ben Abbott, 2011/09/06
- Re: tests in log-scale plots, c., 2011/09/07
- Re: tests in log-scale plots, bpabbott, 2011/09/07
- Re: tests in log-scale plots, c., 2011/09/07
- Re: tests in log-scale plots, bpabbott, 2011/09/07
- Re: tests in log-scale plots, Ben Abbott, 2011/09/10
- Re: tests in log-scale plots, Ben Abbott, 2011/09/11