#13145 closed defect (fixed)
Sage's noncommutative rings don't always increment a refcount
Reported by: | roed | Owned by: | malb |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | critical | Milestone: | sage-5.4 |
Component: | commutative algebra | Keywords: | |
Cc: | SimonKing, malb | Merged in: | sage-5.4.beta1 |
Authors: | David Roe | Reviewers: | Martin Albrecht |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
Running doctests with the new doctest framework revealed that KeyErrors
were being ignored in sage.lib.singular.ring.singular_ring_delete
.
Attachments (1)
Change History (15)
comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
Changed 11 years ago by
Attachment: | 13145.patch added |
---|
comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by
Status: | new → needs_review |
---|
comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by
Status: | needs_review → needs_work |
---|
comment:4 Changed 11 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:5 Changed 11 years ago by
Summary: | Sage's noncommutive rings don't always increment a refcount → Sage's noncommutative rings don't always increment a refcount |
---|
comment:6 Changed 11 years ago by
Status: | needs_work → needs_review |
---|
Somehow the problems went away with further changes in the doctest framework. I'm not convinced that no problems remain in this area, but I'm going to return this to "Needs review" for now.
comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by
Cc: | malb added |
---|
I'm going to make another push to finish #12415. If this could get reviewed sometime in the next week that would be great. I'm not sure if the changes here address all of the issues in deallocating singular objects, but I think it's an improvement and can go in.
comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by
Reviewers: | → Martin Albrecht |
---|---|
Status: | needs_review → positive_review |
Patch looks good to me.
comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by
Milestone: | sage-5.3 → sage-5.4 |
---|
comment:12 Changed 10 years ago by
Merged in: | → sage-5.4.beta1 |
---|---|
Resolution: | → fixed |
Status: | positive_review → closed |
comment:13 Changed 10 years ago by
Question: Wouldn't it be better to follow the approach in #13447? Hence, drop the ring_refcount_dict altogether?
My fixes apparently aren't enough: I'm picking up more failures now.