Opened 7 years ago
Last modified 7 years ago
#17754 new enhancement
stopgap enhancement
Reported by: | jakobkroeker | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | sage-6.5 |
Component: | PLEASE CHANGE | Keywords: | |
Cc: | was, roed, jen, kcrisman, ncohen | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Reviewers: | ||
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
Karl-Dieter Crisman commented about stopgaps that he would find it inappropriate, if *everytime* sage is restarted, a user will get warnings when using routines which return incorrect results; see discussion at http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17183
So one could imagine following enhancement:
- Show a
stopgap
only once per installation per user per sage-version
In case a user wants a different behaviour, stopgap
could be made configurable
e.g. in a way that a stopgap is shown in case of a hit once every time sage is executed.
Also I could imagine to warn greenhorns about bugs in CAS by showing at start a message that mathematical software may contain bugs leading to wrong results, with a link to Mathematically wrong answer list and to bug list
Change History (10)
comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by
comment:2 follow-up: ↓ 5 Changed 7 years ago by
@William
Gee, calm down ;-). This is a half-baked enhancement suggestion, not criticism. .
add hide_stopgap('some-hash-of-message')
That would be fine right now. At a later time point when the stopgap list will be huge (no worries, I will work on that soon *g ) that might be no longer sufficient. .
In practice I have never once heard of any complaints from anybody about not being able to turn off a stopgap message. Never -- not once.
People usually do not complain, they work around issues. We have to acitvely ask for reports (as I had e.g. to for Singular bug 694 by Dino Lorenzini; or for #17697 - my office colleague dit hit it,...) .
Never -- not once. So this isn't a problem in practice.
now once : #17183 *g. If a feature is not perfect, users might not accept it (reread #17183). The question here is, if we should care or not. .
If abs_integrate really is completely broken and full of bugs, then I would want a stopgap whenever it is first used in a session. Doesn't that make sense?
Absolutely, that makes sense... for most of us. Why not add some tolerance for users/developers with a different point of view?
comment:3 in reply to: ↑ description Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to jakobkroeker:
- Show a
stopgap
only once per installation per user per sage-version
That would be pretty much pointless. It's so easy to miss a warning the first time. I think it would be essentially equivalent to removing stopgaps completely.
comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by
On a more technical note, for the Notebook you certainly don't want to do this. Showing a warning once would mean that only one notebook of one user would see the message.
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to jakobkroeker:
Gee, calm down ;-). This is a half-baked enhancement suggestion, not criticism. .
Sorry -- I worry a huge amount about how to effectively decide to spend time. Mistakenly spending time on things that aren't big problems is a huge danger, so I'm particularly careful about it.
I'm worried not due to criticism but because this suggestion is dangerous as is... as Jereon says.
add hide_stopgap('some-hash-of-message')
That would be fine right now. At a later time point when the stopgap list will be huge (no worries, I will work on that soon *g ) that might be no longer sufficient. .
In practice I have never once heard of any complaints from anybody about not being able to turn off a stopgap message. Never -- not once.
People usually do not complain, they work around issues. We have to acitvely ask for reports (as I had e.g. to for Singular bug 694 by Dino Lorenzini; or for #17697 - my office colleague dit hit it,...) .
People complain a lot to me...
Absolutely, that makes sense... for most of us. Why not add some tolerance for users/developers with a different point of view?
I agree; that's why I also included some ideas for how to do this.
I think my suggested approach addresses jdmeyer's very valid concerns (which I also have). Instead of showing the message once, make the user have to very explicitly turn off the warning.
That said, I don't think this should be a high priority.
-- William
comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by
That said, I don't think this should be a high priority.
Indeed. I opened the ticket as 'minor'.
comment:7 Changed 7 years ago by
For the record, if I knew a way to do this easily for abs_integrate
I would do it today. See #12371 - maybe comment:11:ticket:12371 is the closest to something we could do. The problem is that it gives a lot of very good enhancements.
That is not really a comment about this ticket, but now you know where to look for that.
comment:8 follow-up: ↓ 9 Changed 7 years ago by
comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 Changed 7 years ago by
comment:10 Changed 7 years ago by
- Cc ncohen added
some data points: