Re: [cclib-devel] Jaguar parser errors

[Noel O'B. <bao...@gm...>]

Well, there are two choices:
(1) to override the test function with something like:
testmocoeffs = None
(hopefully this would override the function testmocoeffs)

This amounts to implicitly passing these tests.

or

(2) To do as we are currently doing, and explicitly Pass these tests.

I think that explicit is better than implicit, otherwise we *think*
that we can handle Jaguar 4.2 mocoeffs, but this is not necessarily
true. We can perhaps make this even more explicit, by using something
like self.markUntested, or somehow analysing the docstring to identify
that this is an untested test.

The thing is, if we implicitly pass them, future generations of cclib
developers may not be sure whether we just forgot to test it.

What do you think?

Noel

On 21/02/07, Karol Langner <kar...@kn...> wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 of February 2007 10:20, Noel O'Boyle wrote:
> > Any missing log files can only be created for the version that Adam
> > has access to, so we will need to add PASSes for everything else that
> > we are unable to test. AFAIK, the only differences between any of
> > these output files is in the vibrational frequency section, where Jag
> > 4.2 is different.
>
> So why have all the tests done for all versions?
>
> --
> written by Karol Langner
> Wed Feb 21 10:52:42 CET 2007
>