Opened 2 years ago

Closed 2 years ago

## #29887 closed defect (fixed)

# Fix inconsistency in combinatorial designs

Reported by: | gh-Ivo-Maffei | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|

Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-9.2 |

Component: | combinatorial designs | Keywords: | bibd |

Cc: | Merged in: | ||

Authors: | Ivo Maffei | Reviewers: | Dima Pasechnik |

Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |

Branch: | 44276ea (Commits, GitHub, GitLab) | Commit: | 44276ea43e8465428fc9d50541a2bcb8c9bfd807 |

Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |

### Description (last modified by )

In the `BIBD_constructions`

dictionary, values are lists
of blocks except one which is a design object.

We fix this inconsistency as we plan for the function that constructs BIBDs to be extended to lambda other than 1.

### Change History (7)

### comment:1 follow-up: 3 Changed 2 years ago by

### comment:2 Changed 2 years ago by

Authors: | gh-Ivo-Maffei → Ivo Maffei |
---|---|

Status: | new → needs_review |

### comment:3 Changed 2 years ago by

Replying to slelievre:

Could something like:

sage: from sage.combinat.designs.bibd import balanced_incomplete_block_design sage: balanced_incomplete_block_design(176, 50, 14) Truebe added as a doctest?

At the moment the `balanced_incomplete_block_design`

function only takes 2 parameters (`v`

and `k`

).
I was planning to make another ticket where that function gets expanded to allow arbitrary values for lambda.
Do you think I should add everything here?

### comment:4 Changed 2 years ago by

Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|

Summary: | Fixed inconsistency in code that caused a bug → Fix inconsistency in combinatorial designs |

At the moment the

`balanced_incomplete_block_design`

function only takes 2 parameters (`v`

and`k`

). I was planning to make another ticket where that function gets expanded to allow arbitrary values for`lambda`

. Do you think I should add everything here?

It's fine either way. Keep the doctest for the other ticket if you do two.

### comment:5 Changed 2 years ago by

Maybe illustrate the improved consistency in the ticket description here?

### comment:6 Changed 2 years ago by

Reviewers: | → Dima Pasechnik |
---|---|

Status: | needs_review → positive_review |

looks good to me

### comment:7 Changed 2 years ago by

Branch: | u/gh-Ivo-Maffei/bidb_bug → 44276ea43e8465428fc9d50541a2bcb8c9bfd807 |
---|---|

Resolution: | → fixed |

Status: | positive_review → closed |

**Note:**See TracTickets for help on using tickets.

Could something like:

be added as a doctest?

Set the ticket to

`needs_review`

when ready for review.Use full name in "Authors" field rather than trac username.