[with patch, positive review] Adds TestSuite(object).run() generic testing framework

[nthiery]

This patch implements TestSuite?(object).run() which runs systematic checks on the object. Here is a typical call:

     sage: TestSuite(ZZ).run(verbose = True)
     running ._test_an_element() ... done
     running ._test_element_pickling() ... done
     running ._test_not_implemented_methods() ... done
     running ._test_pickling() ... done

In practice, TestSuite?(o).run() runs all the methods named _test_* of the object o. The _test_* methods are typically implemented by abstract super classes and in particular via categories, in order to enforce standard behavior and API (_test_pickling, _test_an_element), or provide mathematical sanity checks (_test_associativity).

For consistent error reporting, the _test_* methods in turn must use the new gadget sage.misc.sage_unittest.InstanceTester? to actually run the tests.

This is used by the category patches #5891 and followers

[was]

Change the name from obj.check() to obj._check(). It is not reasonable that if one does obj.<tab> on *any* Sage object, one sees check.

William

[was]

Change the name from obj.check() to obj._check(). It is not reasonable that if one does obj.<tab> on *any* Sage object, one sees check.

[nthiery]

Patch reworked, after the discussion on sage-devel.

Note: After peeking again into the testunit framework, I finally went for TestSuite?(object).run() which is most consistent with it, while being meaningful.

The otherwise discussed functionality TestSuite?(object).associativity() will be implemented in a later patch (if deemed useful in the meantime).

[was]

I like the new design and class/function names.

[nthiery]

Oops, the doctests were broken (I had forgotten to rename stuff in there)

[mhansen]

Looks good to me. We just have to make sure to re-enable the missing tests when the category stuff is added.

[nthiery]

Thanks for the review! I just fixed my name to please my grand father :-)

[mhansen]

No worries. I really should just add key tomy keyboard layout :-)

[mvngu]

reviewer patch; fixes typos and docstring formatting

[mvngu]

The patch trac_6343-reviewer.patch fixes some typos and copy the docstring for __init__() in the class InstanceTester to the class itself. This is necessary as docstring in methods whose names begin with an underscore (i.e. _) would not show up in the reference manual.

Apart from that, here's a small issue. Can you provide examples and/or tests for the function _test_pickling() in sage/structure/sage_object.pyx? The doctest coverage for sage/structure/sage_object.pyx is very short of 50% and we don't want to make it more difficult to reach 100% coverage.

[nthiery]

Replying to mvngu:

The patch trac_6343-reviewer.patch fixes some typos and copy the docstring for __init__() in the class InstanceTester to the class itself. This is necessary as docstring in methods whose names begin with an underscore (i.e. _) would not show up in the reference manual.

Agreed, that's better (but not for that argument: my opinion is that _* methods, or at least _*_ and * methods should show up in the manual; but that's another discussion).

Thanks for your doc fixes! I double checked them.

Apart from that, here's a small issue. Can you provide examples and/or tests for the function _test_pickling() in sage/structure/sage_object.pyx? The doctest coverage for sage/structure/sage_object.pyx is very short of 50% and we don't want to make it more difficult to reach 100% coverage.

Thanks also for spotting the missing doctest. The attached patch fixes this.

[mhansen]

Everything looks good to me now. Apply all patches.

[mvngu]

Merged patches in this order:

1. trac_6343-sage_object-test-nt.patch
2. trac_6343-reviewer.patch
3. trac_6343-reviewer-nt.patch

[nthiery]

Thanks Mike, thanks Minh!