codecov-commenter
commented
1 year ago Codecov Report
Base: 95.85% // Head: 95.95% // Increases project coverage by +0.10% :tada:
Coverage data is based on head (
06591f8) compared to base (7d32520). Patch coverage: 98.33% of modified lines in pull request are covered.
:mega: This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #11 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 95.85% 95.95% +0.10% ========================================== Files 7 8 +1 Lines 940 989 +49 ========================================== + Hits 901 949 +48 - Misses 39 40 +1 ``` | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/entropyxyz/crypto-primes/pull/11?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [src/hazmat.rs](https://codecov.io/gh/entropyxyz/crypto-primes/pull/11?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None#diff-c3JjL2hhem1hdC5ycw==) | `71.42% <ø> (ø)` | | | [src/hazmat/lucas.rs](https://codecov.io/gh/entropyxyz/crypto-primes/pull/11?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None#diff-c3JjL2hhem1hdC9sdWNhcy5ycw==) | `95.01% <91.66%> (-0.26%)` | :arrow_down: | | [src/hazmat/gcd.rs](https://codecov.io/gh/entropyxyz/crypto-primes/pull/11?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None#diff-c3JjL2hhem1hdC9nY2QucnM=) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | | Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us [how you rate us](https://about.codecov.io/nps?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None). Have a feature suggestion? [Share it here.](https://app.codecov.io/gh/feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None):umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
Fixes #1
According to Robert Baillie himself (from private correspondence), strictly speaking the
gcd(Q, n) == 1check is necessary. Of course, in practice the Lucas test will be executed on a pre-sievedn, andQis always small, so this condition is satisfied automatically. But in order to avoid having implicit assumptions in the code (sincelucas_test()is public), this PR adds the GCD check. The performance impact is negligible, so why not.