Opened 6 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

#14950 closed defect (fixed)

Finish cleanup in sage/combinat/design

Reported by: niles Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone: sage-5.12
Component: combinatorics Keywords:
Cc: Stefan, ncohen, jdemeyer Merged in: sage-5.12.beta0
Authors: Nathann Cohen Reviewers: Niles Johnson
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Description

The changes in #14499 introduce some failures in optional doctests. The first one should be checked and fixed; the other two come from deprecation warnings.

$sage -t --long --optional=sage,gap_packages sage/combinat/designs/design_catalog.py

**********************************************************************
File "sage/combinat/designs/design_catalog.py", line 8, in sage.combinat.designs.design_catalog
Failed example:
    designs.WittDesign(24) # optional - gap_packages
Expected nothing
Got:
    Incidence structure with 24 points and 759 blocks
**********************************************************************
$ sage -t --long --optional=sage,gap_packages sage/combinat/designs/incidence_structures.py

**********************************************************************
File "sage/combinat/designs/incidence_structures.py", line 528, in sage.combinat.designs.incidence_structures.IncidenceStructure.is_block_design
Failed example:
    BD = WittDesign(9)        # optional - gap_packages (design package)
Expected nothing
Got:
    doctest:1: DeprecationWarning: This method soon will not be available in that way anymore. To use it, you can now call it by typing designs.WittDesign
    See http://trac.sagemath.org/14499 for details.
**********************************************************************
File "sage/combinat/designs/incidence_structures.py", line 626, in sage.combinat.designs.incidence_structures.IncidenceStructure.points_from_gap
Failed example:
    BD.points_from_gap()      # optional - gap_packages (design package)
Expected:
    [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
Got:
    doctest:1: DeprecationWarning: Unless somebody protests this method will be removed, as nobody seems to know why it is there.
    See http://trac.sagemath.org/14499 for details.
    [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
**********************************************************************

p.s. Without the deprecation warning, I would have had a tough time figuring out where the first failure was coming from. Thanks for the hint!!

Attachments (1)

trac_14950.patch (2.4 KB) - added by ncohen 6 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (5)

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by ncohen

  • Authors set to Nathann Cohen
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

Sorry 'bout that !

Nathann

Changed 6 years ago by ncohen

comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by niles

  • Milestone set to sage-5.11
  • Reviewers set to Niles Johnson
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

Applies cleanly, passes all tests, looks good!

comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Component changed from PLEASE CHANGE to combinatorics
  • Milestone changed from sage-5.11 to sage-5.12

comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Merged in set to sage-5.12.beta0
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
  • Summary changed from finish cleaup in sage/combinat/design to Finish cleanup in sage/combinat/design
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.