#17830: Comparison of number field elements dependent of real embedding
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vdelecroix | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.6
Component: number fields | Resolution:
Keywords: sd66 | Merged in:
Authors: Vincent | Reviewers:
Delecroix, Štěpán Starosta | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | a8c294b7188157fb1c168d1eff89ad0c2b200469
u/vdelecroix/17830 | Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vdelecroix):
Replying to [comment:17 chapoton]:
> {{{
> +Decreased doctests rings/number_field/number_field_base.pyx from 11 /
11 = 100% to 12 / 13 = 92%
> }}}
Then what? There is no way to test `_init_embedding_approx` that
initialize private attributes. For sure we can duplicate doctests from
`_get_embedding_approx` or even write
{{{
TESTS::
sage: 1 + 1 # indirect doctest
2
}}}
if it makes you happier. But I am not happy with that. If you have any
'''constructive''' suggestion I would be happy to hear it.
General note: asking for review (= waiting from other people comments) is
different from merging into Sage. Patchbot green light concerns the
latter.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17830#comment:18>
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.
