Opened 4 years ago

Closed 4 years ago

#18911 closed defect (fixed)

Doctest failure in LocalMcLaughlinGraph

Reported by: jdemeyer Owned by:
Priority: blocker Milestone: sage-6.8
Component: doctest coverage Keywords:
Cc: ncohen, dcoudert Merged in:
Authors: Nathann Cohen Reviewers: Jeroen Demeyer
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: 05a2e41 (Commits) Commit: 05a2e411ea947dc896bd47f255b984d2390f57af
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Description

Obvious failure introduced in #18782:

**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/graphs/generators/smallgraphs.py", line 3453, in sage.graphs.generators.smallgraphs.LocalMcLaughlinGraph
Failed example:
    g = graphs.LocalMcLaughlinGraph(); g   # long time # optional - gap_packages
Expected nothing
Got:
    Local McLaughlin Graph: Graph on 162 vertices
**********************************************************************

Change History (13)

comment:1 follow-up: Changed 4 years ago by ncohen

  • Authors set to Nathann Cohen
  • Branch set to u/ncohen/18911
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

Sigh... sage -btp insead of sage -btp -l.. Sorry :-/

Nathann

P.S.: Now a broken optional doctest is a blocker? Cool :-P

comment:2 Changed 4 years ago by git

  • Commit set to 05a2e411ea947dc896bd47f255b984d2390f57af

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

05a2e41trac #18911: Broken doctest

comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 1 ; follow-up: Changed 4 years ago by jdemeyer

Replying to ncohen:

Now a broken optional doctest is a blocker? Cool :-P

Every doctest failure should be a blocker. That's why I care so much to not introduce artificial doctest failures in #18904.

comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 ; follow-up: Changed 4 years ago by ncohen

Every doctest failure should be a blocker.

It's a bit weird to say that something is a blocker even though our automated testing (patchbots, Volker's tests before each release) does not even detect it.

That's why I care so much to not introduce artificial doctest failures in #18904.

If only you did not try to hid bugs under the carpet in order to preserve the appearance of reliability ...

I also want all doctests to pass. My method to do so is to let them scream when they want to, and to fix the problems.

Nathann

Last edited 4 years ago by ncohen (previous) (diff)

comment:5 follow-up: Changed 4 years ago by ncohen

By the way, given that 'every doctest failure should be a blocker', why don't you apply that and create blocker tickets until all broken doctests involving maple/matlab/octave/mathematica are fixed? Or is it actually a lie? :-P

comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 4 ; follow-up: Changed 4 years ago by jdemeyer

Replying to ncohen:

It's a bit weird to say that something is a blocker even though our automated testing (patchbots, Volker's tests before each release) does not even detect it.

That is certainly true. Better testing infrastructure is hopefully something that will happen with support from OpenDreamKit.

comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 4 years ago by ncohen

That is certainly true. Better testing infrastructure is hopefully something that will happen with support from OpenDreamKit.

Indeed. Well if you ever meet those guys please tell them about it. That would definitely help.

comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 5 ; follow-up: Changed 4 years ago by jdemeyer

Replying to ncohen:

why don't you apply that and create blocker tickets until all broken doctests involving maple/matlab/octave/mathematica are fixed?

I don't see any such failures in ptestlong.log, they are all under my big carpet.

comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 Changed 4 years ago by ncohen

I don't see any such failures in ptestlong.log, they are all under my big carpet.

Sigh... Well, the good thing about this bug is that it says that there are reasons for me to re-run my patchbot again. With many packages.

Nathann

comment:10 Changed 4 years ago by ncohen

... seems that there was a new power cut in my office in Paris. Okayyyyy, another time :-P

comment:11 Changed 4 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Reviewers set to Jeroen Demeyer
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

comment:12 Changed 4 years ago by ncohen

Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanks,

Nathann

comment:13 Changed 4 years ago by vbraun

  • Branch changed from u/ncohen/18911 to 05a2e411ea947dc896bd47f255b984d2390f57af
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.