#10042: Doctest failure in sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_element.pyx
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter: mpatel | Owner: mvngu
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: blocker | Milestone: sage-4.6
Component: doctest | Keywords:
Author: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: report upstream |
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Comment(by drkirkby):
I'm busy until at least Wednesday of next week (20th October), so will not
be spending much time on Sage.
Updating the version of Lapack (#10123) is more complex than I thought it
would be, and I don't have time to complete this. Libraries are called
foobar.a and not libfoobar.a. This causes issues with both the packages
self-tests and Sage doctests. So the package I created is effectively
useless and will remain so unless I work on it more.
IIRC, I did manage to get this doc test to run, and it still failed, so
the Lapack upgrade will not fix this. However, it's hard to report bugs
upstream when we are running 3 year old versions of packages, so I think
updating Lapack is necessary before we report this upstream.
So it would be good if someone could review John's cleaned up Lapack at
#10121, and not wait for me to produce a new version of Lapack.
It would be good if someone could write a few doc tests broadly similar to
this one, to ensure that under some other conditions the Numpy errors does
not become totally unacceptable.
Having thought it more, I think Paul Zimmerma's suggestion to use the dots
to make this pass might be sensible, as from a practical point of view,
such a small error is not really a problem. There does appear to be a bug,
but there are a lot more serious bugs in Sage that are not blockers.
For example, if one runs the Maxima self-tests, several fail with small
numerical issues with ECL but pass with other Lisp interpreters. One of
the Maxima developers has said he think ECL is "off by one bit in places".
Of course, the fact we don't run the Maxima self-tests as part of Sage
means we don't see this.
Many testing frameworks for software have several categories for failures,
which include
* Expected to fail and did fail
* Expected to fail and passed.
* Expected to pass and failed
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10042#comment:54>
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 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.
