search

sagemath / sage

Main repository of SageMath
https://www.sagemath.org
Other
1.47k stars 487 forks source link

Broken docstring in binpacking method #9392

Closed 6bdad4c1-1e26-4f2f-a442-a01a2292c181 closed 14 years ago

6bdad4c1-1e26-4f2f-a442-a01a2292c181 commented 14 years ago

Not really broken, but subject to change of behaviours depending on the solver used.... ;-)

Nathann

CC: @rlmill @nexttime

Component: numerical

Author: Nathann Cohen

Reviewer: Leif Leonhardy, Robert Miller

Merged: sage-4.5.alpha3

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/9392

6bdad4c1-1e26-4f2f-a442-a01a2292c181 commented 14 years ago
comment:1

Attachment: trac_9392.patch.gz

Here it is !

Nathann

83660e46-0051-498b-a8c1-f7a7bd232b5a commented 14 years ago
comment:3

Nathann's patch fails on normal (non-optional) doctesting because of undefined variables/some sections not marked "optional".

83660e46-0051-498b-a8c1-f7a7bd232b5a commented 14 years ago

Attachment: trac_9392-first_reviewer.patch.gz

Fixes non-optional doctesting. Apply on top of Nathann's patch.

83660e46-0051-498b-a8c1-f7a7bd232b5a commented 14 years ago
comment:4

With my reviewer patch applied, at least passes reasonable tests (-long, -long with -only-optional=cbc,glpk in sage/numerical) on a 32-bit system where the doctest previously did not fail...

Leaving as "needs review" for further testing.

89c6e537-b2e3-45e6-882d-d4957b74ffe5 commented 14 years ago

Author: Nathann Cohen

89c6e537-b2e3-45e6-882d-d4957b74ffe5 commented 14 years ago
comment:5

Doesn't this depend on #9312?

89c6e537-b2e3-45e6-882d-d4957b74ffe5 commented 14 years ago

Reviewer: Leif Leonhardy, Robert Miller

6bdad4c1-1e26-4f2f-a442-a01a2292c181 commented 14 years ago
comment:6

Not really... Though if we say it depends on #9312, then we do not need to add these "optional" flags anymore :-D

Nathann

89c6e537-b2e3-45e6-882d-d4957b74ffe5 commented 14 years ago

Merged: sage-4.5.alpha3

83660e46-0051-498b-a8c1-f7a7bd232b5a commented 14 years ago
comment:9

Well, if GLPK gets a standard package, we should definitely remove the optional tags, since otherwise these tests are omitted in the usual test process.

(We could just substitute optional by standard to make life easier in case the package is made optional again for some reason. Same for Nathann's patch at #9312.)

83660e46-0051-498b-a8c1-f7a7bd232b5a commented 14 years ago
comment:10

Replying to @nexttime:

Well, if GLPK gets a standard package, we should definitely remove the optional tags, since otherwise these tests are omitted in the usual test process.

This is addressed at #9432.