Opened 6 years ago
Closed 5 years ago
#16091 closed enhancement (fixed)
A missing obvious case for BIBD
Reported by: | ncohen | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-6.3 |
Component: | combinatorics | Keywords: | |
Cc: | dimpase | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Nathann Cohen | Reviewers: | Kannappan Sampath |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | e722cb1 (Commits) | Commit: | e722cb1fea07de2c9d2576c36b359ee4db82fb44 |
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
A (v,v,1)-BIBD is a set of size v. Though right now :
sage: designs.BalancedIncompleteBlockDesign(10,10) ... ValueError: I don't know how to build this design.
Change History (12)
comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by
- Branch set to u/ncohen/16091
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by
- Commit set to e722cb1fea07de2c9d2576c36b359ee4db82fb44
comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by
- Created changed from 04/08/14 08:30:40 to 04/08/14 08:30:40
- Modified changed from 04/08/14 08:32:01 to 04/08/14 08:32:01
Trying out sage -dev comment, please ignore.
comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by
- Reviewers set to knsam
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by
Thaaaaaaaaaanks !
Could you add your name in the "reviewer" field of this ticket please ?
Nathann
comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by
- Reviewers changed from knsam to Kannappan Sampath
comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by
Looks good to me. I have considered what I think is a proper review: I got your remote branch and made it my local branch. Then, I did sage -b, opening a sage session, I tested out this code and it worked fine. Since this adds no new documentation, I did not rebuild the documentation. I hope this sounds fine.
comment:8 Changed 5 years ago by
Helloooooooooo !!
The beginning looks right, but when doing a review you should also check that all doctests pass : those are the examples of Sage code that we add in the doc, i.e. what comes after "A trivial BIBD" in the branch.
Each time you review a patch, make sure that what the patch changes/adds is tested in one such example, and that it returns what it shoud :
by running "sage -t file.py", you tests all those lines. That's how we can spot a LOT of bugs before a release, as all functions of Sage are tested in this way. If you change something very fundamental in the code and make a mistake, very often the doctests of all functions that use the code that you changed will be buggy, and you can spot that by running "sage -t" on related files.
You can also run "sage -tp X file.py" where X is the number of CPU that you have,if you have many of them.
Nathann
comment:9 Changed 5 years ago by
Hah, thanks for the heads up! I did the sage -t:
Apples-MacBook-Pro:sage apple$ sage -t src/sage/combinat/designs/block_design.py init.sage does not exist ... creating Running doctests with ID 2014-04-23-21-17-34-0ba3f60d. Doctesting 1 file. sage -t src/sage/combinat/designs/block_design.py [23 tests, 1.47 s] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All tests passed! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Total time for all tests: 1.5 seconds cpu time: 0.5 seconds cumulative wall time: 1.5 seconds
and all tests pass! Thank you Nathann for pointing out.
comment:10 Changed 5 years ago by
np :-)
Nathann
comment:11 Changed 5 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.2 to sage-6.3
comment:12 Changed 5 years ago by
- Branch changed from u/ncohen/16091 to e722cb1fea07de2c9d2576c36b359ee4db82fb44
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
trac #16091: A missing obvious case for BIBD