#17637 closed defect (fixed)
Stopgap for IntegerListsLex
Reported by: | ncohen | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | blocker | Milestone: | sage-6.5 |
Component: | combinatorics | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Merged in: | ||
Authors: | Nathann Cohen | Reviewers: | Jeroen Demeyer |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | 5f00624 (Commits) | Commit: | |
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
As reported on #17548, the class IntegerListsLex
returns wrong result. Until this is fixed, we need a stopgap to warn users.
Change History (12)
comment:1 Changed 4 years ago by
- Branch set to public/17637
- Priority changed from major to blocker
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 4 years ago by
- Commit set to 5f0062460c512ebf001e12632daadb25961e7c81
comment:3 follow-up: ↓ 4 Changed 4 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
Since #17548 is about min_slope
, shouldn't the warning be only if the min_slope
argument was given?
comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 Changed 4 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
Since #17548 is about
min_slope
, shouldn't the warning be only if themin_slope
argument was given?
In the code, it is said that the constraints are "assumed to be correct". I have no idea what happens if min_slope
is not defined by max_slope
is, or max_part
or anything. If you believe that there is a situation in which the code will never return anything wrong you can adapt the error message.
Nathann
comment:5 Changed 4 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:6 Changed 4 years ago by
Thanks
Nathann
comment:7 Changed 4 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
Reviewer name missing
comment:8 Changed 4 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Jeroen Demeyer
- Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
comment:9 follow-up: ↓ 10 Changed 4 years ago by
- Branch changed from public/17637 to 5f0062460c512ebf001e12632daadb25961e7c81
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 ; follow-up: ↓ 11 Changed 4 years ago by
- Commit 5f0062460c512ebf001e12632daadb25961e7c81 deleted
As far as I can see from #17548 there are actually no known bugs with regards to IntegerListsLex?. So I find it a total overreaction to put a stopgap as the limitations of IntegerListsLex? are correctly documented. Now warnings appear in many parts of the code which are completely unrelated to this issue (and as I said, there does not appear to be a bug). For example
sage: K = crystals.KirillovReshetikhin(['D',4,1],1,1) /Applications/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/combinat/partition.py:4827: ******************************************************************************** This code contains bugs and may be mathematically unreliable. This issue is being tracked at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/17548. ********************************************************************************
or
sage: Partitions(3,max_part=2) /Applications/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/combinat/partition.py:6622: ******************************************************************************** This code contains bugs and may be mathematically unreliable. This issue is being tracked at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/17548. ******************************************************************************** Partitions of 3 having parts less than or equal to 2
both of which are totally fine!
Best,
Anne
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 ; follow-up: ↓ 12 Changed 4 years ago by
Dear Anne,
As far as I can see from #17548 there are actually no known bugs with regards to IntegerListsLex?.
What about those examples from #17548 ?
sage: Partitions(5, min_slope=1).list() ValueError: [2, 4] is not a valid partition sage: IntegerListsLex(5, length=3, max_slope=0).list() # 0 is allowed in the partition [[5, 0, 0], [4, 1, 0], [3, 2, 0], [3, 1, 1], [2, 2, 1]] sage: IntegerListsLex(5, max_slope=0).list() # now its not [[5], [4, 1], [3, 2], [3, 1, 1], [2, 2, 1], [2, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1, 1, 1]]
I will answer other points on #17898.
Nathann
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 4 years ago by
Replying to ncohen:
Dear Anne,
As far as I can see from #17548 there are actually no known bugs with regards to IntegerListsLex?.
What about those examples from #17548 ?
sage: Partitions(5, min_slope=1).list() ValueError: [2, 4] is not a valid partition sage: IntegerListsLex(5, length=3, max_slope=0).list() # 0 is allowed in the partition [[5, 0, 0], [4, 1, 0], [3, 2, 0], [3, 1, 1], [2, 2, 1]] sage: IntegerListsLex(5, max_slope=0).list() # now its not [[5], [4, 1], [3, 2], [3, 1, 1], [2, 2, 1], [2, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1, 1, 1]]I will answer other points on #17898.
Nathann
Read the answers that Travis gave on that ticket. They are consistent with the specifications or bad user input.
Anne
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
trac #17637: Stopgap for IntegerListsLex