#3337: [with spkg, needs work] Upgrade gap-guava to new 4.4.12/3.9 release
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Reporter: tabbott | Owner: mabshoff
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-3.4.1
Component: packages | Resolution:
Keywords: |
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Comment (by mabshoff):
Replying to [comment:45 wdj]:
Hi David,
> As I said in my comments, I have no idea why the "This should never
happen" prints are there. I said this several times, so I'm sorry if my
last comment suggested otherwise. I did not insert that print statement
into gap.py and don't know who did. The correct computation appears after
those print statements.
Well, someone needs to fix the bug. One way would be to make them real
warnings, i.e. they are not raised with the default settings. But looking
at the code something fishy is going on.
> I did not get the doctest error in const.tex listed in the list of
failures at the bottom. That is the way I determine which failures have
occurred.
That is because you did not run the documentation doctests. You corrected
the same bug in some other place in the Sage library in one of the above
patches.
> Regarding M.determinant(), I get a failure unless I do exactly as I did.
The tests passed for me. (I think there is a bug in abs but am not sure.)
As I mentioned this is a 32 vs. 64 bit issue. On a 64 bit box the tests
pass, but not on a 32 bit box. Printing Python ints (*not* Sage integers)
causes issues like that on 32 vs. 64 bit platforms when the value is
between an in and a long. Just drop the int() and you are good to go since
in this case the determinant returns a Sage integer anyway.
> Regarding the matrix_integer_dense.pyx failure, that just never happened
for me:\
I did not see any failure in matrix_integer_dense.pyx. What file do you
mean?
<SNIP>
This is the result of your doctesting? The patches should have never been
posted as ready for review. The notebook failures have nothing to do with
this failure. Maybe you ought to develop patches in branches so you don't
get unrelated doctest failures like that. I expect any patch posted for
review to pass the doctest suite 100%. Anything else is an instant "needs
work" by me unless the issue is trivially fixable.
> Sorry for the miscommunication. If you tell me what to change I will
change it but AFAIK, there are not more failures that I know of that I can
fix.
Ok, please make 100% clear if all doctests passed for you or not. I have
spend considerable time on building and testing this GAP.spkg and the
related patches since I assumed it would actually worked while I have 10
tickets or so to fix on my own for the 3.3 release which needs to drop
soon. Knowing what I know now I would not have touched these patches at
all.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3337#comment:46>
Sage <http://sagemath.org/>
Sage - Open Source Mathematical Software: Building the Car Instead of
Reinventing the Wheel
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
