#10952: better numerical accuracy testing
-----------------------------------------------------------------+----------
Reporter: robertwb |
Owner: mvngu
Type: enhancement |
Status: closed
Priority: critical |
Milestone: sage-4.7.2
Component: doctest |
Resolution: fixed
Keywords: sd32 noise noisy doctest failure error tolerance |
Work_issues:
Upstream: N/A |
Reviewer: Jason Grout, Mariah Lenox, William Stein, John Palmieri
Author: Robert Bradshaw, Rob Beezer |
Merged: sage-4.7.2.alpha3
Dependencies: |
-----------------------------------------------------------------+----------
Comment(by kcrisman):
I'd like to draw the attention of folks here to comment:7:ticket:12493.
Apparently one can't do {{{only-optional}}} tests along with {{{tol}}}
tests at the same time. My guess is that not too many people use
{{{only-optional}}} and the {{{tol}}} stuff is pretty new.
In fact, I only found one occurrence in 5.0.beta3. Can that be right?
This has been in Sage for months!
{{{
sage: search_src(" tol ","#")
symbolic/integration/integral.py:587: sage:
error.numerical_approx() # abs tol 10e-10
}}}
Anyway, even if my analysis is wrong (let's hope it's easier than that), I
figure the people here can give a quick diagnosis of #12493.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10952#comment:44>
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.
