Re: [cclib-devel] Jaguar parser errors

[Karol L. <kar...@kn...>]

That is convincing, it is better to do these things explicitly, as long as it 
is done the same way everywhere.

Karol

On Wednesday 21 of February 2007 11:10, Noel O'Boyle wrote:
> 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

-- 
written by Karol Langner
Wed Feb 21 11:36:48 CET 2007