ffc team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 09:21:59AM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
>
>
> On 1 February 2010 09:15, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:38:46PM +0100, Kristian Oelgaard wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 31 January 2010 21:07, Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>All buildbots should be green now. Only FFC tests are currently
> >>>failing but I suspect a small fix is needed on the buildbot side
> >>>to run the new tests (which involve compilation against UFC).
> >>>
> >>>What about the evaluate_basis and evaluate_basis_derivatives
> >>>tests. Are they in good shape, and what do they do differently from
> >>>the regression tests?
> >>
> >>The current content of evaluate_basis* is just a test against old values from FFC, but with many more elements. But since many of the elements has changed the order of dofs they are not of much use. Therefore, I'm working on a test suite which will compare values from fiat_element.tabulate() to ufc_element.evaluate_basis() and ufc_element.evaluate_basis_derivatives(). There is still a little work to be done, but I can hopefully push something tomorrow that will replace what is in evaluate_basis/ and then evaluate_basis_derivatives/ can be removed.
> >
> >ok.
> >
> >Is this a unit test or where should it be placed?
>
> I'm not sure, but I'll put it in test/evaluate_basis, then you can have a look and see what you think. I think it is more of a unit test because it checks that the result of the FFC implementation is in agreement with the FIAT backend.
>
> Kristian

Yes, it looks like some kind of unit test to me.

Could you try placing it under test/unit/something and see if you can
make it work with the top level test/unit/test.py file?

--
Anders

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature