Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • Dec 03 2020 06:40
    polytomous edited #11
  • Dec 03 2020 06:40
    polytomous commented #11
  • Nov 11 2020 20:28

    pkalikman on master

    Update README.md (compare)

  • Nov 11 2020 19:40

    pkalikman on master

    Attempt to change generic synta… (compare)

  • Nov 11 2020 19:38

    pkalikman on master

    Base.Test -> Test (compare)

  • Nov 11 2020 19:36

    pkalikman on master

    Ditto Test (compare)

  • Nov 11 2020 19:35

    pkalikman on master

    Put reexport into project deps … (compare)

  • Nov 11 2020 19:27

    pkalikman on master

    First of long slog to get packa… (compare)

  • Oct 09 2019 08:28
    KristofferC closed #12
  • Sep 04 2019 15:21
    KristofferC opened #12
  • Mar 28 2018 01:18
    polytomous commented #11
  • Mar 24 2018 18:40
    pkalikman commented #11
  • Mar 13 2018 08:19
    polytomous closed #11
  • Mar 13 2018 08:00
    polytomous opened #11
  • Jul 14 2017 14:40
    pkalikman opened #10
  • Jul 14 2017 14:40
    pkalikman opened #9
  • Jul 14 2017 04:01

    pkalikman on gh-pages

    build based on 579dd92 (compare)

  • Jul 14 2017 03:57

    pkalikman on master

    Update copyright year (compare)

  • Jul 12 2017 13:18
    pkalikman commented #7
  • Jul 11 2017 17:23
    pkalikman opened #8
Flomastruk
@Flomastruk
Hi Philip,
It's Fima
Philip Kalikman
@pkalikman
Hi! Can you take a look at Checkers.jl and let me know what you think? Feel free to post updates here; I'll check occasionally (no pun intended).
Flomastruk
@Flomastruk
That looks great! I've just left some comments next to your TODOs, and hopefully I'll address some of them soon. It seems that there are many interesting things to be done there!
I didn't change any code so far
Thank you!!!
Philip Kalikman
@pkalikman
I think we should push it a little further forward, then tag it as v0.1, then submit to the JL repository
Also I want to make a decision about keeping @test_forall vs. just using Base.Test's @test for i in ... syntax
If we can support the logging syntax in @test_forall or find another thing it does that the Base functionality does not, then it may be worthwhile to keep it around. Otherwise I think we should favor minimalism and only provide what can't currently or concisely be done
Flomastruk
@Flomastruk
Hi Philip,
I've updated Checkers.jl a little bit. Most importantly, now it prints evidence for Fail in @test_formany or instance for Pass in @test_exists

I don't think I have an access to push changes to your repo:

Efims-MacBook-Pro:Checkers Fima$ git push origin newoutput
Counting objects: 13, done.
Delta compression using up to 4 threads.
Compressing objects: 100% (12/12), done.
Writing objects: 100% (13/13), 2.25 KiB | 0 bytes/s, done.
Total 13 (delta 9), reused 0 (delta 0)
remote: Resolving deltas: 100% (9/9), completed with 6 local objects.
To git@github.com:pkalikman/Checkers.jl.git
! [remote rejected] newoutput -> newoutput (permission denied)
error: failed to push some refs to 'git@github.com:pkalikman/Checkers.jl.git'

If you find these changes reasonable after I push them, I also agree that it's about time to publish it
Philip Kalikman
@pkalikman
I think we should (1) work on improving our code coverage in tests (2) also clean up some of the examples / inline documentation, sort out whether doctests are working, etc. (3) decide on whether to keep @test_forall or just kill it since it duplicates @test for ... end, and finally (4) see if anyone has any useful feedback to this question I asked on Julia Discourse https://discourse.julialang.org/t/package-development-checklist-flow-prerequisites-quickstart-guide-etc/1408
Flomastruk
@Flomastruk
Hey! just pushed a new macro, it is not completely ready yet. I still have to complete something, so you may disregard these changes so far. The idea will be that @test_exists and @test_formany will be unified under this macro. It will also allow to not break during the testing and get things like "test passed in 55/100 cases"
giving a way for testing properties of random variables (once we rework custom_generator function a little bit)
Philip Kalikman
@pkalikman
It will allow that as an option or by default? Generally it's dangerous to allow a test to fail and the result to be reported as Pass. I'd rather err on the side of caution.
Anyway I am going to try to figure out why it's currently not building, and also figure out how to get the docs to build on ReadTheDocs
Not sure why they currently are not
Philip Kalikman
@pkalikman
I don't understand why this is failing:
@test_exists ntests=1000 0<<x<1, x < 0.5
Oh wait, this is going in the wrong order isn't it
OK never mind. I just misconstrued the syntax. I meant to test this, which passes: @test_exists ntests=1000 0<x<<1, x < 0.5
Flomastruk
@Flomastruk
Hey! I finished one part: now macros @test_formany and @test_exists are unified and both refer to @test_cases under the hood. It still remains to allow more general custom generator, and now some new documentation for the new macro
@test_cases 0<x<100, x<75
That would be an example of the new functionality
What I have in mind: having a nice tool for checking properties of distributions of various random variables etc
Philip Kalikman
@pkalikman
I don't really understand. Can you explain a little bit about the pipeline? Or provide some examples where you state the current syntax and its new/ unified equivalent?
Thanks!
Flomastruk
@Flomastruk
Hey! Sorry for the delay, I am still working on it. I really want to finish it before explaining everything in greater detail. Basically the new feature allows one to see the sample probability that a given proposition is satisfied.
In the example above the generated argument x is chosen uniformally between 0 and 100, so the output will fluctuate around 75/100 cases, reflecting the corresponding probability for the uniform distribution
Philip Kalikman
@pkalikman
Oh cool. Great idea.
Flomastruk
@Flomastruk
I just pushed a new portion of updates to a new branch. Didn't try to merge it. But there is a couple of examples in examples/new-type-generator.jl file
I'll start writing documentation for the new functionality