[Numpy-discussion] nose changes checked in

[Robert Kern]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 11:59, Alan McIntyre <alan.mcintyre at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> - The signature of numpy.test in 1.2 will be backward compatible with
>>> 1.1, and it will at least return some indication of failure (if not
>>> the same object as in 1.1).  This will, by the way, make it different
>>> from the signature and behavior of scipy.test.
>>
>> scipy.test() should be made to match numpy.test(). scipy.testing was a
>> staging ground for the nose changes in numpy, not a separate branch of
>> development.
>
> Ok. Jarrod mentioned that the intent is to change SciPy over to use
> numpy.testing (and remove scipy.testing) once NumPy's nose transition
> is complete.  Is that something that something that will happen
> simultaneously in the next release, or will SciPy lag behind one
> cycle?

No scipy was released with the new scipy.testing stuff, so scipy
itself is the only customer. We can transition ourselves.

> Either way, at some point in the next few weeks I'll try
> making that change locally just to see if it turns up any surprising
> requirements in the NumPy side.
>
>> For my preference, we should accept the old argument signature with a
>> deprecation warning but prefer the current signature. This is a little
>> hairy, but such is life with deprecations.
>
> Do you want a blanket warning, or only a warning if test() gets
> keyword arguments from the old signature?

The latter, please. I know it's tricky, but it is doable.

> Also, since the numpy.testing.ScipyTestCase and ScipyTest classes
> already had deprecation warnings in 1.1, I'll leave them out in 1.2,
> if that's ok.

Yes.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
 -- Umberto Eco