#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:47 wdj]:

 Hi David,

 > You have a number of incorrect statements. I will list them in order.
 >
 > >  That is because you did not run the documentation
 > >  doctests.
 >
 > sage -testall runs doctests, so your claim is incorrect. The problem is
 that it appears that it does not (for me) print the doctest failures for
 the documentation. It used to do that and someone changed the behaviour.

 No, -testall tests the Sage library and not the documentation. I do not
 recall that testall ever tested the documentation and I have been doing
 releases for well over a year now fulltime. If you look at the check
 target in the Makefile you will see that the DSage unit tests are run,
 then the documentation tests, then the Sage library tests.

 Sage's -tp doctests also the documentation on demand if SAGE_TEXT_TEX is
 set to "1", but that is not the default.

 > > 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.
 >
 >
 > This statement is incorrect for me (amd64 ubuntu 8.10).

 It is a well know fact that Python ints can print differently on 32 and 64
 bit platforms and that the difference is the extra L in certain cases on
 32 bit boxen. I have pointed that out twice before.

 > Maybe it is true for the machines you test with? As I
 > said, I think abs may have a bug but in any case I will
 > change int to ZZ. (I confirmed the type statement you
 > made before adding the int, this is why I think there is a bug. Maybe
 the prepaser is changing things?)

 No, this is Python behavior since you convert it to a Python int. Do not
 convert it and it will just work since abs() will return an integer AFAIK
 in this situation, but I can test that later.

 >
 > > Maybe you ought to develop patches in branches so
 > > you don't get unrelated doctest failures like that.
 >
 >
 > You were the one who suggested I do the testing on sage.math. You can
 see from
 >
 > {{{
 >
 http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wdj/sagefiles/sage-3.3.alpha6/devel/
 > }}}
 > that I am using a branch. I've forgotten how long it's been since I've
 gotten all doctests to pass! I will try to make that clearer in the future
 though.

 I do not merge *any* patch which causes doctest failures and the
 3.3.alpha6 binary I posted doctested perfect on sage.math when I bdisted.
 As I pointed out in the release notes in

   http://groups.google.com/group/sage-
 devel/browse_thread/thread/48b893e904634273#

 you needed to apply a patch to work around a relocation issue which
 everyone triggers when they use a binary, but I discovered that
 afterwards:
 {{{
 Merging for rc0 has already started and one bug made it into alpha6
 that can cause cloning to fail has been resolved. So please pull in
 the fix below
 #5205: Michael Abshoff: Set "# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-" encoding for
 sage/server/notebook/template.py [Reviewed by Mike Hansen]
 in case you run into trouble cloning. It also happens when you move
 the tree.
 }}}

 If you look at the ticket it clearly outlines the doctest failure related
 to the notebook you saw. The other six alphas doctested perfect out of the
 box on sage.math.

 >
 > I'll post a patch with the 2 changes you suggested hopefully in the next
 several hours.

 Ok.

 Cheers,

 Michael

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3337#comment:48>
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to