Abstract Code Class

[gh-emes4]

AbstractLinearCode is at the moment the most abstract representation of codes in Sage. This makes it very difficult to implement non-linear codes and also codes with a metric different than Hamming.

We propose to create AbstractCode class that will contain metric-agnostic methods, as well as the encoder/decoder framework. AbstractLinearCode will derive from this class.

[gh-emes4]

New commits:

​f4767e0	AbstractCode class created, cut relevant methods from linear_code.py
​2cc4c72	Reverted base_field and length to be only in linear_code.py
​64f446a	Merge branch 'develop' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into abstract_code
​53e445b	added base_ring and length parameter to AbstractCode
​5e6dffe	Fixed some dependencies. Category still set up wrong.
​ba4fc53	Merge branch 'abstract_code' into t/28073/abstract_code

[dimpase]

you've checked in uncleanly merged/rebased things, e.g.

+>>>>>>> 4f44acd853... Fixed some dependencies. Category still set up wrong.

please look at >>>>, <<<<, and ==== markers in these files, clean them up.

[git]

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

​e8edfeb

Fixed unclean merge.

[gh-emes4]

Replying to dimpase:

Sorry about that, it showed me the cleaned up file in my editor.

[gh-emes4]

I created the class AbstractCode and moved all the relevant methods from AbstractLinearCode.

Originally, I had default_encoder and default_decoder parameters in the initialisation of AbstractCode, however, I ran into an issue with dependencies - if I set a default_encoder for AbstractLinearCode, this would then be the default for all the codes inheriting from this. I am sure that this can be fixed, however maybe it makes sense for classes such as AbstractLinearCode to not have default decoders/encoders?

Finally, one of the doc tests fails. I tried to set up the category stuff (Parent.__init__()), but I don't think I did it correctly.

This is just a rough, first draft.

[git]

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

​880aebb

Fixed default decoder/encoder dependencies. Set to None by default.

[jsrn]

Thanks for working on this! I took a quick view over the new class, and it looks good. There are some copy/paste errors in the documentation where it refers to AbstractLinearCode or "this linear code" etc., but that's small stuff.

More importantly, I am worried about how AbstractCode should fit into the category framework. In particular, a non-linear code is not necessarily a module. Also, some objects people call codes are not even inside some free module like R^n for some ring R, e.g. polyalphabetic codes like Chinese Remainder Codes or Polynomial Remainder codes, which are inside A_1 x A_2 x ... x A_n for some rings A_i. Really, the most general notion of a code is just a subset of some set, which isn't saying much.

Perhaps, as we're now talking of a really base class for all codes, AbstractCode should therefore simply omit setting up anything in the category framework, leaving that to more concrete implementations. The task of AbstractCode would then basically only consist of setting up the encoder/decoder framework, as well as providing the metric method, which I like (I guess list() is fine too). It shouldn't even have a length I guess?

In this case, I don't know whether AbstractCode should somehow otherwise be made a parent in the category framework, or whether we should agree that this is a "contract" that sub-classes have to do themselves.

Best, Johan

[git]

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

​d115600

No category set up and base_field in AbstractCode. No encoder/decoder error msgs. Documentation and tests.

[gh-emes4]

I made all the changes we discussed, namely:

The category framework is no longer set up in AbstractCode. Instead of inheriting from Module, it now inherits from Parent. I tried a few things, e.g. SageObject, Set here and Parent seemed to do the trick. I added some documentation hopefully instructing the user on how to set the category framework up.

I took base_field away from the initiating parameters of AbstractCode. This should be the only change in AbstractLinearCode.

The decoder and encoder methods now instruct the user to add a decoder/encoder for the code if they try to use the encoder/decoder framework without having set these up. I added tests for these. If there are no default encoders/decoders, the methods decoders_available and encoders_available return an empty list. Let me know if all the checks for None are correctly set up.

I extended the documentation and following the example of AbstractLinearCode, added an example of how to use AbstractCode to create a subclass.

A lot of the documentation overlaps with AbstractLinearCode, however I don't think this is an issue.

[dimpase]

please push your updates...

[git]

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

​2bf73f8	Merge branch 'develop' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into t/28073/abstract_code
​487e9e2	Category related methods added. Encoder/decoder documentation specified for linear codes.

[gh-emes4]

Added methods __iter__ and __contains__ to AbstractCode instructing the user to override them.

Changed Encoder and Decoder class documentation to instruct the user to inherit from these when working with linear codes (over any metric).

[git]

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

​40df01e

Finished up documentation.

[git]

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

​01135cb

Merge branch 'develop' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into t/28073/abstract_code

[jsrn]

This looks very promising! My comments may look long but they are not too heavy. Note: this is not a complete review, I didn't compile, run the code and build the documentation. I'm hoping Dima will do that :-)

• Top of the class:

The only assumption we kept is that the code is enumerable.

change to

The abstract notion of "code" that is implicitly used for this class is any enumerable subset of a cartesian product `A_1 \times A_2 \times \ldots \times A_n for some sets A_i`. Note though that this class makes no attempt to directly represent the code in this fashion, allowing subclasses to make the appropriate choices. The notion of metric is also not mathematically enforced in any way, and is simply stored as a string value. ".

The line just after has a line break very early, doesn't it?

• part of the framework category -> part of the category framework

• any method that works on linear codes works for our -> coming from AbstractCode code

• The example in AbstractCode.__init__ is not great, since it doesn't yield a working code class (it doesn't implement _list_ etc.). Can you make an small, but more meaningful example, e.g. the code consisting of the l words

{
  00...00,
  10...00,
  11...00,
  ...
  11...10,
  11...11
}

For this code, you could add a full working example with implementations of _list_, __iter__, __contains__.

The For #28209, the example could be expounded upon in a short thematic tutorial: adding an encoder/unencoder from the ring (ZZ mod (l+1)) into the code. The metric could be Hamming (though the code is of course quite bad), and that would allow attaching the LinearCodeNearestNeighbor? decoder, which actually works for any code under the Hamming metric.

That would be very nice documentation for anyone wanting to implement a new class of codes not fitting in linear/hamming codes.

• The example for _repr_ and _latex_ is unnecessarily complicated because AbstractCode does not need supplying encoders and decoders. Use instead the smaller example from e.g. __contains__.

• In doc for decode_to_code and decode_to_message, the description of word should say "an element in the ambient space as self". The code might not be vectorial in the classical sense.

• For decoder() and encoder(), the exception thrown should be a NotImplementedError and the message could perhaps be "No encoder [resp. decoder] implemented for this code".

• In doc for encode, then the description of word should say "an element of a message space of the code". The message space might not be vectorial. The note after the INPUT block is not appropriate anymore and should just be removed.

• At this abstraction there's virtually no service we could put on an Encoder or Decoder class which would justify having an AbstractEncoder? or AbstractDecoder?, I think. In a strongly typed OOP language, like Java, we would of course have to have such a thing, but I believe in Python and SageMath in particular, the convention is not to have needless abstract classes. Therefore your oneline doc changes to encoder.py and decoder.py are spot-on: that's all the change we'll have for those files.

However, we are left with something of a documentation problem. For where do we document the precise interface requirements of an encoder and a decoder assumed by the framework in AbstractCode?? I think the best place for this is a (not too long) discussion at the top of the file abstract_code.py, i.e. just after "Any class inheriting ... can use the encode/decode framework". Here we can describe what that is, and what is meant and promised by an encoder/decoder.

I am OK with having a relatively short description of the purpose, and just mentioning the methods an encoder must have (encode, __call__ which is simply encode, unencode, message_space and code), and similarly for a decoder. And then pointing to Encoder and Decoder as examples.

Best, Johan

[dimpase]

I'd like to wait for above to be implemented (at least in part) before doing my own review.

[git]

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

​ef7b797	Merge branch 'develop' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into t/28073/abstract_code
​9608a23	Documentation and example fixes.

[gh-emes4]

I implemented all the changes that Johan suggested.

One comment: In the new example in AbstractCode.__init__, I didn't make it a part of the category framework, partially because I was unsure as to which category to choose.

[jsrn]

Replying to gh-emes4:

I implemented all the changes that Johan suggested.

You are fast! :-)

One comment: In the new example in AbstractCode.__init__, I didn't make it a part of the category framework, partially because I was unsure as to which category to choose.

Putting it in the category framework would be great, but I think it is fine as it is. I'm happy with the example :-)

One new comment I thought of: AbstractLinearCode used to inherit from Module as well as being injected into the category framework under Modules. Now it inherits from AbstractCode which, of course, does not inherit from Module. My concern is whether some functionality from Module might now have gotten lost?

I haven't checked out your ticket and compiled, but this is the list of methods I get with dir(C) on a freshly created LinearCode C on Sage 8.8.rc3:

['CartesianProduct', 'Element', 'Hom', '__cached_methods', '__call__', '__class__', '__contains__', '__delattr__', '__dict__', '__dir__', '__div__', '__doc__', '__eq__', '__format__', '__gens_dict', '__getattribute__', '__getitem__', '__getstate__', '__hash__', '__init__', '__init_extra__', '__iter__', '__len__', '__make_element_class__', '__module__', '__mul__', '__ne__', '__new__', '__nonzero__', '__pari__', '__pyx_vtable__', '__rdiv__', '__reduce__', '__reduce_ex__', '__repr__', '__rmul__', '__setattr__', '__setstate__', '__sizeof__', '__slots__', '__str__', '__subclasshook__', '__temporarily_change_names', '_abstract_element_class', '_an_element_', '_apply_module_endomorphism', '_apply_module_morphism', '_ascii_art_', '_assign_names', '_axiom_', '_axiom_init_', '_base', '_cache_an_element', '_cache_key', '_canonize', '_coerce_map_from_', '_coerce_map_via', '_coercions_used', '_convert_map_from_', '_convert_method_map', '_convert_method_name', '_default_decoder_name', '_default_encoder_name', '_defining_names', '_dense_free_module', '_dimension', '_doccls', '_element_constructor_', '_element_constructor_from_element_class', '_facade_for', '_factory_data', '_first_ngens', '_fricas_', '_fricas_init_', '_from_dict', '_gap_', '_gap_init_', '_generator_matrix', '_generic_coerce_map', '_generic_convert_map', '_get_action_', '_giac_', '_giac_init_', '_gp_', '_gp_init_', '_init_category_', '_initial_action_list', '_initial_coerce_list', '_initial_convert_list', '_interface_', '_interface_init_', '_interface_is_cached_', '_internal_coerce_map_from', '_internal_convert_map_from', '_introspect_coerce', '_is_category_initialized', '_is_coercion_cached', '_is_conversion_cached', '_is_valid_homomorphism_', '_kash_', '_kash_init_', '_latex_', '_length', '_macaulay2_', '_macaulay2_init_', '_magma_init_', '_maple_', '_maple_init_', '_mathematica_', '_mathematica_init_', '_maxima_', '_maxima_init_', '_maxima_lib_', '_maxima_lib_init_', '_minimum_distance', '_minimum_weight_codeword', '_module_morphism', '_names', '_octave_', '_octave_init_', '_pari_init_', '_polymake_', '_polymake_init_', '_populate_coercion_lists_', '_punctured_form', '_r_init_', '_reduction', '_refine_category_', '_registered_decoders', '_registered_encoders', '_remove_from_coerce_cache', '_repr_', '_repr_option', '_sage_', '_set_element_constructor', '_singular_', '_singular_init_', '_sum_of_monomials', '_test_additive_associativity', '_test_an_element', '_test_cardinality', '_test_category', '_test_elements', '_test_elements_eq_reflexive', '_test_elements_eq_symmetric', '_test_elements_eq_transitive', '_test_elements_neq', '_test_eq', '_test_new', '_test_not_implemented_methods', '_test_pickling', '_test_some_elements', '_test_zero', '_tester', '_underlying_class', '_unicode_art_', '_unset_category', '_unset_coercions_used', '_unset_embedding', 'add_decoder', 'add_encoder', 'addition_table', 'algebra', 'ambient_space', 'an_element', 'annihilator', 'annihilator_basis', 'assmus_mattson_designs', 'automorphism_group_gens', 'base', 'base_extend', 'base_field', 'base_ring', 'basis', 'binomial_moment', 'canonical_representative', 'cardinality', 'cartesian_product', 'categories', 'category', 'change_ring', 'characteristic', 'characteristic_polynomial', 'chinen_polynomial', 'coerce', 'coerce_embedding', 'coerce_map_from', 'construction', 'convert_map_from', 'covering_radius', 'decode_to_code', 'decode_to_message', 'decoder', 'decoders_available', 'dimension', 'direct_sum', 'divisor', 'dual_code', 'dump', 'dumps', 'echelon_form', 'element_class', 'encode', 'encoder', 'encoders_available', 'endomorphism_ring', 'extended_code', 'facade_for', 'from_vector', 'galois_closure', 'generator_matrix', 'gens', 'gens_dict', 'gens_dict_recursive', 'genus', 'get_action', 'has_coerce_map_from', 'hom', 'information_set', 'inject_variables', 'is_empty', 'is_exact', 'is_finite', 'is_galois_closed', 'is_information_set', 'is_parent_of', 'is_permutation_automorphism', 'is_permutation_equivalent', 'is_projective', 'is_self_dual', 'is_self_orthogonal', 'is_subcode', 'latex_name', 'latex_variable_names', 'length', 'linear_combination', 'list', 'minimum_distance', 'module_composition_factors', 'module_morphism', 'monomial', 'monomial_or_zero_if_none', 'objgen', 'objgens', 'parent', 'parity_check_matrix', 'permutation_automorphism_group', 'permuted_code', 'punctured', 'quotient_module', 'random_element', 'rate', 'redundancy_matrix', 'register_action', 'register_coercion', 'register_conversion', 'register_embedding', 'relative_distance', 'rename', 'reset_name', 'save', 'shortened', 'some_elements', 'spectrum', 'standard_form', 'submodule', 'sum', 'sum_of_monomials', 'sum_of_terms', 'summation', 'summation_from_element_class_add', 'support', 'syndrome', 'systematic_generator_matrix', 'tensor', 'tensor_square', 'term', 'unencode', 'variable_name', 'variable_names', 'weight_distribution', 'weight_enumerator', 'zero', 'zeta_function', 'zeta_polynomial']

[jsrn]

Oh yeah, Python has multiple inheritance, so perhaps AbstractLinearCode should just be declared as

class AbstractLinearCode(AbstractCode, Module)

and then everything should be fine?

[gh-emes4]

Replying to jsrn:

I haven't checked out your ticket and compiled, but this is the list of methods I get with dir(C) on a freshly created LinearCode C on Sage 8.8.rc3:

Without inheriting from Module, a fresh LinearCode on this branch (Sage 8.9.beta4) has more methods than your list, but is missing these: ['base_extend', 'change_ring', 'endomorphism_ring'].

I added the Module inheritance, will push it with some bigger changes.

[jsrn]

Replying to gh-emes4:

Replying to jsrn:

I haven't checked out your ticket and compiled, but this is the list of methods I get with dir(C) on a freshly created LinearCode C on Sage 8.8.rc3:

Without inheriting from Module, a fresh LinearCode on this branch (Sage 8.9.beta4) has more methods than your list, but is missing these: ['base_extend', 'change_ring', 'endomorphism_ring'].

None of those methods seem to do anything useful, and they don't even make much sense for a (linear) code to begin with. endomorphism_ring is particularly unfortunate, since we have automorphism_group_gens which does something very useful, and a user might confuse these.

Perhaps, then, it's better to not inherit from Module after all?

[dimpase]

Replying to jsrn:

None of those methods seem to do anything useful, and they don't even make much sense for a (linear) code to begin with. endomorphism_ring is particularly unfortunate, since we have automorphism_group_gens which does something very useful, and a user might confuse these.

Perhaps, then, it's better to not inherit from Module after all?

IMHO, Module is too general, here we have free modules, a.k.a. ModulesWithBasis.

[jsrn]

Replying to dimpase:

Perhaps, then, it's better to not inherit from Module after all?

IMHO, Module is too general, here we have free modules, a.k.a. ModulesWithBasis.

That's absolutely true. If we inherit from that instead, do these useless methods then go away?

[gh-emes4]

Replying to jsrn:

Replying to dimpase:

Perhaps, then, it's better to not inherit from Module after all?

IMHO, Module is too general, here we have free modules, a.k.a. ModulesWithBasis.

That's absolutely true. If we inherit from that instead, do these useless methods then go away?

When I add ModulesWithBasis to the inheritance of AbstractLinearCode, I get the following error: ValueError: base must be a ring or a subcategory of Rings(). I am not sure how to fix that?

[jsrn]

I see, this is due to the structure of the category framework: ModulesWithBasis is a category (i.e. the set of all modules with a basis). We are standing with a single "module with basis", so we should put that into the category. But there is no class ModuleWithBasis (singular). So the way this is done is to inherit from Module and then use a magic incantation to tell the category framework that this is not just any module, it is a module with basis. That's exactly what is currently done in AbstractLinearCode.

Looking at the definition of sage.modules.modules.Module, I don't see anything useful for LinearCodes to inherit. On the other hand, it's probably not a good idea to put a parent object into the category of modules (with basis) without that parent object actually being a module. At least, any strong type system would cry ;-)

So I suggest just keeping the status quo by using multiple inheritance so AbstractLinearCode inherits from both AbstractCode and Module (in that order).

[jsrn]

I've just been reviewing the cleanup-ticket #27634. This ticket might very well conflict with that, so I suggest merging in #27634 and making it a dependency, so we handle that up-front.

[jsrn]

I propose adding a method ambient_space to AbstractCode which throws a NotImplementedError. It should be documented that it is recommended (but not required) to override this method. Then we can also move the __call__ method of AbstractLinearCode to AbstractCode.

[gh-emes4]

Replying to jsrn:

I propose adding a method ambient_space to AbstractCode which throws a NotImplementedError. It should be documented that it is recommended (but not required) to override this method. Then we can also move the __call__ method of AbstractLinearCode to AbstractCode.

Is this method required by the encoder/decoder framework?

[jsrn]

Replying to gh-emes4:

Replying to jsrn:

I propose adding a method ambient_space to AbstractCode which throws a NotImplementedError. It should be documented that it is recommended (but not required) to override this method. Then we can also move the __call__ method of AbstractLinearCode to AbstractCode.

Is this method required by the encoder/decoder framework?

Well, __call__ is a natural method for any code that is encodable, so it naturally fits to AbstractCode. Generally in Sage for a parent P then P(e) for some value e does one of two things (which abstractly is maybe the same thing):

1. It "coerces" e into being something that can be considered to be in P. So you convert e into the shape objects in P have. E.g. if F is a field then F(1) gives you the 1-element of that field.

2. It uses e as an input to create an object in P. E.g. if P is a polynomial ring then P[1,2,3] creates the polynomial 1 + 2*x + 3*x^2.

If P is some linear code C, then Item 1 is supported in the sense that if e is a vector in the ambient space of C, then C(e) returns e if e is in C, otherwise it throws an error. Not the most useful function perhaps, but it follows this coercioen convention of SageMath.

Item 2, however, can naturally be considered to be encoding - after all, that's the canonical way you would "construct" a codeword. Due to the convention that the default encoder should always use F[x]^k as the message space, then if e is a vector of length k then C(e) returns the encoding of e as a codeword.

A funny (disturbing?) detail I never considered before is that if C is an [n,n] code, then the current implementation always uses Item 1, i.e. it doesn't encode.

Anyway, this convention absolutely makes sense for any type of code I could think of. So, it should be on AbstractCode. For that to work, ambient_space() has to be on AbstractCode as well. But since we don't really want to force a representation of the ambient space (since it would be some clumsy cartesian product in the general case), then we should just leave it to subclasses to fill out.

In any case, it is a natural function to expect a code to have, i.e. if I was writing in a strongly typed language like Java or C#, then AbstractCode would be an interface, and I would require ambient_space to be a method that had to be implemented in subclasses.

[git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. Last 10 new commits:

​c8706ee	Merge branch 'develop'
​fb35c2f	Fixes responding to reviewer comments
​0b95c1d	Manual table for codes_catalog.py
​1bca13c	Merge branch 'u/jsrn/27634'
​6bf9f1e	Remove unwanted names under codes
​24df329	A minor fix in the main document
​6c7012b	A pyflakes fix in linear_code.py
​c650b8a	Rename channel_constructions.py and goppa.py
​5230b19	Merge #27634
​318b444	Module inheritance. Ambient_space and __call__ changes.

[dimpase]

Replying to jsrn:

Replying to gh-emes4:

Replying to jsrn:

I haven't checked out your ticket and compiled, but this is the list of methods I get with dir(C) on a freshly created LinearCode C on Sage 8.8.rc3:

Without inheriting from Module, a fresh LinearCode on this branch (Sage 8.9.beta4) has more methods than your list, but is missing these: ['base_extend', 'change_ring', 'endomorphism_ring'].

None of those methods seem to do anything useful, and they don't even make much sense for a (linear) code to begin with. endomorphism_ring is particularly unfortunate,

endomorphism ring provides maps onto subcodes, which does not look as totally useless to me.

changing the ring (taking a bigger ring) produces an additive code.

[gh-emes4]

Replying to jsrn:

In any case, it is a natural function to expect a code to have, i.e. if I was writing in a strongly typed language like Java or C#, then AbstractCode would be an interface, and I would require ambient_space to be a method that had to be implemented in subclasses.

Thank you for the explanation, makes things much clearer!

I did all the changes, namely added Module to inheritance of AbstractLinearCode, merged #27634, added ambient_space method to AbstractCode with a recommendation to implement it, and moved __call__ from AbstractLinearCode to AbstractCode.

[jsrn]

Replying to dimpase:

endomorphism ring provides maps onto subcodes, which does not look as totally useless to me.

Quite true. I have never seen people study it, but probably some people have. And it does have the same type of meaning as automorphism_group_gens. It's just inconsistent and unfortunate that that method is not called automorphism_ring and wraps the returned generators in some appropriate algebraic object.

changing the ring (taking a bigger ring) produces an additive code.

OK, I'm not familiar with those. But of course you can take a linear code over some field F_q and then consider its generator matrix as part of F_{q^m} and look at the code there. That would even be trivial to implement (but does not belong in this ticket).

[jsrn]

Replying to gh-emes4:

I did all the changes, namely added Module to inheritance of AbstractLinearCode, merged #27634, added ambient_space method to AbstractCode with a recommendation to implement it, and moved __call__ from AbstractLinearCode to AbstractCode.

Awesome! I'm happy now :-) Dima, your turn ;-)

[dimpase]

I am getting (on the branch of the ticket)

sage -t --warn-long 47.5 src/doc/en/thematic_tutorials/structures_in_coding_theory.rst
**********************************************************************
File "src/doc/en/thematic_tutorials/structures_in_coding_theory.rst", line 450, in doc.en.thematic_tutorials.structures_in_coding_theory
Failed example:
    from sage.coding.channel_constructions import Channel
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/dimpase/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 681, in _run
        self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
      File "/home/dimpase/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 1105, in compile_and_execute
        exec(compiled, globs)
      File "<doctest doc.en.thematic_tutorials.structures_in_coding_theory[0]>", line 1, in <module>
        from sage.coding.channel_constructions import Channel
    ImportError: No module named channel_constructions
**********************************************************************
File "src/doc/en/thematic_tutorials/structures_in_coding_theory.rst", line 451, in doc.en.thematic_tutorials.structures_in_coding_theory
Failed example:
    class BinaryStaticErrorRateChannel(Channel):
        def __init__(self, space, number_errors):
            if space.base_ring() is not GF(2):
                raise ValueError("Provided space must be a vector space over GF(2)")
            if number_errors > space.dimension():
                raise ValueErrors("number_errors cannot be bigger than input space's dimension")
            super(BinaryStaticErrorRateChannel, self).__init__(space, space)
            self._number_errors = number_errors
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/dimpase/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 681, in _run
        self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
      File "/home/dimpase/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 1105, in compile_and_execute
        exec(compiled, globs)
      File "<doctest doc.en.thematic_tutorials.structures_in_coding_theory[1]>", line 1, in <module>
        class BinaryStaticErrorRateChannel(Channel):
    NameError: name 'Channel' is not defined
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   2 of  45 in doc.en.thematic_tutorials.structures_in_coding_theory
    [28 tests, 2 failures, 0.11 s]

[dimpase]

there is also a typo, please apply the following:

--- a/src/sage/coding/abstract_code.py
+++ b/src/sage/coding/abstract_code.py
@@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ class AbstractCode(Parent):
         r"""
         Return an error stating ``ambient_space`` of ``self`` is not implemented.
 
-        This method is required by the :method:`__call__`.
+        This method is required by the :meth:`__call__`.
 
         EXAMPLES::
 

[git]

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

​3996761	Merge commit '8b01cc5df9e1508250976b08b4d2212aecb02927' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into t/28073/abstract_code
​a4582a3	Merge branch 'develop' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into t/28073/abstract_code
​4dbc878	documentation fix

[gh-emes4]

Replying to dimpase:

I am getting (on the branch of the ticket)

This was an error coming from #27634, ​https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/27634#comment:40. It was fixed on the ticket, I merged the updated branch.

I fixed the small documentation mistake.

I ran the whole test suite make ptestlong and there were no errors.

[dimpase]

looks good

[dimpase]

reviewer names should be real names.

[gh-Adurand8]

Sorry, I missed this information. It's corrected !

[chapoton]

moving milestone to 9.0 (after release of 8.9)