Opened 6 years ago

Closed 5 years ago

#17617 closed defect (fixed)

Coding theory tutorial: many broken doctests

Reported by: ncohen Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone: sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
Component: coding theory Keywords:
Cc: dlucas Merged in:
Authors: Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: #17616 Stopgaps:

Description (last modified by jdemeyer)

The examples contained in the coding theory tutorial were never tested because they began with "Sage :" instead of "sage:".

This is reformatted in #17616 but many doctests were broken and were flagged as "not tested". Somebody who understands coding theory should go over them and fix them properly.

Even the sentence

Included in Sage is the group theory package GAP [GAP] and GUAVA [GUAVA], GAP’s coding theory package. All of GUAVA’s functions can be accessed within Sage.

is wrong, as GUAVA is optional, part of gap_packages.

[1] http://www.sagemath.org/doc/thematic_tutorials/coding_theory.html

Change History (8)

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:2 follow-up: Changed 6 years ago by wdj

It appears now "codes." must be preappended: for example,

C = ToricCode([[0,0],[1,0],[2,0],[0,1],[1,1]],GF(7))

becomes

C = codes.ToricCode([[0,0],[1,0],[2,0],[0,1],[1,1]],GF(7))

comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 6 years ago by ncohen

It appears now "codes." must be preappended: for example,

True. I believe that #17616 already does that wherever it is needed, though.

Nathann

comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by jsrn

  • Cc dlucas added

David, this should be fixed now, right?

comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by dlucas

Indeed.

All of these were fixed when I completely rewrote this tutorial in #19897.

I don't exactly know what to do in that case though. I know you can set a ticket as closed/invalid/wontfix which it more or less the case here, but I don't know how to do that.

comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by jsrn

  • Milestone changed from sage-6.5 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

Like this?

comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by dlucas

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

Yes, like this. It was under "milestones", of course...

Anyway, I'm giving a positive review to this closed/invalid/wontfix as the bugs described in this ticket does not exist anymore.

comment:8 Changed 5 years ago by vbraun

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.