On 07/06/2010 01:27 PM, Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 06.07.2010, 13:12 Uhr, schrieb Martijn Faassen<faassen@startifact.com>:
What do you mean, a doctest embedded within another? I'm probably missing something.
No, it's probably me getting the explicit doctest call wrong. It looks to my novice eyes like print statement is being passed to a "doctest" method. In matters like these it's usually safe to assume I'm wrong! :-)
No, that comment (if you mean that?) is just a way to send configuration parameters to the doctest engine. It calls the view.
hm, I don't think that can be argued with really, particularly given the amount of time I've actually studied this and other documents over reading the code. But I do think that, whether the module runs as specified, and whether the documentation is up to snuff, are of a different nature and, consequently, so are their failures. Shouldn't we be testing documentation differently?
I think a failure in documentation should ideally show up when running the tests. I do agree that documentation and tests have different concerns and that mixing them can (but does not necessarily have to) lead to poor documentation. Regards, Martijn