#17464: Computing the automorphism group of a graph
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: azi | Owner:
Type: | Status: needs_work
enhancement | Milestone: sage-6.5
Priority: major | Resolution:
Component: graph | Merged in:
theory | Reviewers:
Keywords: | Work issues:
Authors: | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | aed44e8dd39982907467b6e0d699f9def062f1af
Branch: | Stopgaps:
public/bliss |
Dependencies: |
#17552 |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by azi):
Replying to [comment:39 ncohen]:
> What I don't like about "def canonical_label(..." is that the doc
appears BEFORE the function's definition. Could it be that ?
That surely didn't help but the error still persists :-S I have no idea
where the mismatch is.
> Well, definitely there is something wrong in `automorphism_group`, where
you define a keyword `algorithm` but never read it.
Yes I was following your advice from above which was to add a condition of
the form
{{{
if algorithm is None and is_package_installed("bliss") :
}}}
since we only offer two algorithms for now this works fine, perhaps
provided that we write the option algorithm="nice" to indicate the
currently default implementation? What do you suggest?
> Then you should probably add a couple of new doctests using bliss (with
an #optional flag) in the function from >`generic_graph`. Whatever you do
with this function's input, you should probably do the same in the similar
functions btw: >`canonical_label`, and `is_isomorphic`.
Is it not enough to have them in bliss.pyx? If not, then I'll add some
doctests when we agree on the technical aspects of the code
> Also, it looks like the test that you run in `is_isomorphic` (number of
edges/vertices) already appear a bit later in the code. No reason to have
them appear twice.
fixed
>
> There is still this line which has nothing to do here
>
> {{{
> #!diff
> + :meth:`~GenericGraph.geodetic_number` | Returns the geodetic number
of the given graph.
> }}}
fixed
> Oh, and several lines are still longer than 80chr, and we try to wrap
them because ...
80chr is quite tight :O Also have you noticed that there appears to be
some indentation inconsistency in the code? It looks like the functions on
the bottom (example def graph_isom_equivalent_non_edge_labeled_graph) are
not indented as the above ones?
Thanks for the input,
Jernej
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17464#comment:41>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
