#8051 closed defect (fixed)
SageNB 0.7.x
Reported by:  mpatel  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage4.3.2 
Component:  notebook  Keywords:  
Cc:  Merged in:  sage4.3.2  
Authors:  Mitesh Patel  Reviewers:  Robert Mařík, Minh Van Nguyen, Alex Leone 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  Commit:  
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
Change History (42)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:2 followup: ↓ 3 Changed 9 years ago by
 Cc acleone timdumol was added
 Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to mpatel:
If it's possible, I'd like to get into 0.7.1 as many of the now remaining "needs review" tickets as we can. I'm rebasing these now.
Here's a possible queue:
trac_7784hgignore_update.patch trac_5712interruptnotification.5.patch trac_6069missing_pub_ws.2.patch trac_8038email_plus_addressing_v2.patch trac_7506notebook_objectdocumentation.2.patch trac_693spawn_notebook.3.patch trac_5177deletecelldirs.3.patch
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by
 blockedby set to 7249
 Owner changed from was to mpatel
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by
 blockedby 7249 deleted
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Summary changed from SageNB 0.7 to SageNB 0.7.1
comment:7 Changed 9 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
I just noticed that long 'eval'
docstrings are truncated. I'll add a reviewer patch to #3083.
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Summary changed from SageNB 0.7.1 to SageNB 0.7.2
comment:9 followup: ↓ 10 Changed 9 years ago by
All tickets got positive review and have been merged. So what should be reviewed in this ticket?
I installed the spkg, seems to work fine (but I did not test everything), is this enough to give positive review?
btw: the link from description "says" http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/mpatel/trac/8051/sagenb0.7.2.spkg but it points to http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/mpatel/trac/8051/sagenb0.7.1.spkg
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to robert.marik:
All tickets got positive review and have been merged. So what should be reviewed in this ticket?
You need to make sure that you can successfully install the updated spkg.
I installed the spkg, seems to work fine (but I did not test everything), is this enough to give positive review?
I would say, all doctests must pass as well. In any case, if you can't run all doctests after installing the updated spkg, I can do that. A correct link to the updated spkg is
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/mpatel/trac/8051/sagenb0.7.2.spkg
comment:11 Changed 9 years ago by
I don't understand why the spkg is not managed by Mercurial:
[mvngu@mod sagenb0.7.2]$ hg st abort: There is no Mercurial repository here (.hg not found)!
The file spkginstall
should have its executable bits on:
[mvngu@mod sagenb0.7.2]$ ls g spkginstall rwrr 1 mvngu 348 20100130 16:37 spkginstall
And SPKG.txt
is very sketchy about update details.
comment:12 Changed 9 years ago by
I suggest
 Checking that the package installs and the notebook runs.
 Checking the repo for uncheckedin changes, queued patches, etc.
 Checking that the claimed merged tickets appear in
hg log
.  Running the doctests:
sage t sagenb
.
Ideally, you should run the SageNB Selenium tests, too. But they require special extra setup. I'll make simplifying that setup a separate ticket.
Thanks for pointing out the link error. I've updated it.
comment:13 followup: ↓ 14 Changed 9 years ago by
The repository is in sagenb0.7.2/src/sagenb
. We autogenerate the package with sagenb0.7.2/src/sagenb/spkgdist
.
I suggest that I make a separate ticket to update SPKG.txt.
See #7784 about
$ hg stat ? release_notes.txt ? setup.cfg
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to mpatel:
I suggest that I make a separate ticket to update SPKG.txt.
Or I can do this here later today.
comment:15 Changed 9 years ago by
I'll fix the spkginstall
problem, too.
comment:16 Changed 9 years ago by
 Reviewers set to Robert Mařík, Minh Van Nguyen
Please see #7784 for the changes. If/when that ticket gets a positive review, I'll create SageNB 0.7.3 and post it here.
comment:17 Changed 9 years ago by
By the way, it seems that for the near future, I may be the only very active SageNB developer. I'd be very happy to be proved (proven?) wrong! There are many tasks to complete  there are several cool new notebook features to implement. It's not possible for me to cover them all, and I'd like to avoid stalling ongoing development.
To this end, I'll try to make it easier for Sage developers to review notebook tickets or make other contributions. Please let me know what would help. For example, I can make experimental spkgs that contain the latest patches in the queue. Those who wish just to test the cumulative changes can install the package with sage f sagenb*.spkg
. But reviewers can also open the spkg, pop / push patches, and comment on specific ticket(s). In either case, we'll get useful information about how the notebook behaves in a wider gamut of browserOS combinations. We'll also get more end user feedback.
comment:18 followup: ↓ 19 Changed 9 years ago by
Experimental spkgs would be good. I think the best way to get more testing/review would be a good guide to applying patches, testing spkgs, etc.
Is there a mailing list or wiki page for coordinating development effort?
comment:19 in reply to: ↑ 18 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to acleone:
Is there a mailing list or wiki page for coordinating development effort?
A relevant mailing is sagedevel. Most of the time, that list receives high volume traffic on development discussion. For coordinating release effort, the sagerelease mailing list is appropriate. Some effort is underway to expand the Sage documentation with information to help beginners getting started with Sage development. The relevant tickets are:
 #8108: Expand the Sage Developer Guide for newcomers
 #6987: reorganize section on producing patches with Mercurial
 #8079: Better documentation for patching spgk's
 #8104: developer's guide for making spkgs should specify that patches need to be version controlled
 #3882: explain in the programming guide why spkg source patches should be applied by copying entire files
 #7944: update Developers' Guide to reflect new process for working on tickets
comment:20 Changed 9 years ago by
Both sagedevel and sagenotebook are good places. I suppose we should move this discussion to sagenotebook.
One source for ideas is SageTasks, but it may be getting old.
Addendum: Of course, we should also try to attract energetic developers who'd contribute fresh ideas, techniques, etc., to the SageNB project.
comment:21 Changed 9 years ago by
While I'm here, I'd also like to suggest using alpha.sagenb.org
or creating ouch.sagenb.org
to test a bleedingedge SageNB. This could be a notebook with all positively reviewed patches applied or, more interestingly, an experimental spkg.
We could also set up a corresponding repository, different from http://boxen.math.washington.edu:8100/, to which to push experimental features and from which to backport what works. A potential problem here is that Mercurial changesets are immutable. But we might not care about keeping the history of this repository clean.
Just some thoughts.
comment:22 Changed 9 years ago by
Installs fine, works fine with jsmath image fonts, tests paseed, cannot check the rest, since I have probably old hg in my Debian Linux
sage@umbc107:~/sagenb0.7.2/src/sagenb$ hg log abort: requirement 'fncache' not supported! sage@umbc107:~/sagenb0.7.2/src/sagenb$ hg status abort: requirement 'fncache' not supported!
Can someone finish testing? I think that this is very important ticket and nice sage notebook is important to attract new users (and new developers). Thank you for working on it.
comment:23 Changed 9 years ago by
If you have a spare moment, please review #7784, which is "blocking" this ticket.
You can use sage hg
instead of hg
.
comment:24 followup: ↓ 25 Changed 9 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Summary changed from SageNB 0.7.2 to SageNB 0.7.3
comment:25 in reply to: ↑ 24 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to mpatel:
Minh  Even with #8036, it's very likely the PDF reference manual won't build with this spkg, owing to #7249's Unicode doctests. I'm not sure what we should do about this.
The release deadline for Sage 4.3.2 is Saturday 06th February 2010, which means there's not much time for sorting out failures when building the PDF version of the reference manual. I think sagenb0.7.3.spkg needs to wait for after Sage 4.3.2 is done.
comment:26 Changed 9 years ago by
 Cc acleone timdumol was removed
Please see #8167. If/when that ticket gets a positive review, I'll make 0.7.4...
comment:27 Changed 9 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Summary changed from SageNB 0.7.3 to SageNB 0.7.x
I've posted SageNB 0.7.4 for review.
comment:28 Changed 9 years ago by
Thanks for the update. But now I have too many sage notebooks
[marik@umbc107 ../lib/python/sitepackages]$ pwd /opt/sage/local/lib/python/sitepackages [marik@umbc107 ../lib/python/sitepackages]$ ls ld sagenb* drwxrxrx 4 marik marik 4096 1. úno 17.16 sagenb0.6py2.6.egg drwxrxrx 4 marik marik 4096 2. úno 19.33 sagenb0.7.2py2.6.egg drwxrxrx 4 marik marik 4096 5. úno 09.13 sagenb0.7.4py2.6.egg
How do I know, which one is actually used? Jsmath image fonts failed to install intro correct directory. Should the old sage notebook be removed, first? Should this be tested on fresh install only?
comment:29 Changed 9 years ago by
We install the sagenb package with setuptools (PyPI), which updates SAGE_LOCAL/lib/python/sitepackages/easyinstall.pth
. This file contains paths prepended to sys.path
on startup.
You can query the installed version with
sage: from sagenb.misc.misc import SAGENB_VERSION sage: SAGENB_VERSION
which is essentially
sage: from pkg_resources import Requirement, working_set sage: w = working_set.find(Requirement.parse('sagenb')) sage: w.version
Moreover, w.location
gives the install directory.
I'm checking the fonts now...
comment:30 followup: ↓ 32 Changed 9 years ago by
 Reviewers changed from Robert Mařík, Minh Van Nguyen to Robert Mařík, Minh Van Nguyen, Alex Leone
sagenb 0.7.4 installed correctly for me. All doc and selenium tests passed. Still problems building the PDF docs but Ihaven't applied any of the unicode patches (using vanilla sage4.3.2.alpha1).
comment:31 Changed 9 years ago by
On the fonts: What is the output of
egrep "Copying jsMath image"\"Installed.*sagenb" $SAGE_ROOT/install.log
?
comment:32 in reply to: ↑ 30 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to acleone:
sagenb 0.7.4 installed correctly for me. All doc and selenium tests passed. Still problems building the PDF docs but Ihaven't applied any of the unicode patches (using vanilla sage4.3.2.alpha1).
Positive review?
comment:33 Changed 9 years ago by
$ egrep "Copying jsMath image"\"Installed.*sagenb" ~/sagedev/sage4.3.2.alpha1/install.log Installed /home/alex/sagedev/sage4.3.2.alpha1/local/lib/python2.6/sitepackages/sagenb0.6py2.6.egg
Strange.
sage: from sagenb.misc.misc import SAGENB_VERSION sage: SAGENB_VERSION '0.7.4'
Here's how I installed:
make
on an unmodified 4.3.2.alpha1

$ tar jxvf sagenb0.7.4.spkg $ cd sagenb0.7.4/src/sagenb/ $ sage python setup.py develop
 Tested with
sage t sagenb
 Selenium tests with
sage python sagenb/testing/run_tests.py
 Checking the PDF build with
sage docbuild all pdf
comment:34 Changed 9 years ago by
I think this is OK, because the SAGE_LOCAL/bin/sagespkg
script invoked by sage f
updates SAGE_ROOT/install.log
but the sage python setup.py
commands do not.
comment:35 Changed 9 years ago by
The "Use image fonts" option is disabled (greyed out) in jsMath  is this a problem?
jsMath v3.6c (Unicode fonts)
comment:36 Changed 9 years ago by
Are the image fonts installed? In twist.py
, we set the boolean
jsmath_image_fonts = is_package_installed("jsmathimagefonts")
which propagates to jsmath.js
. This should enable the option if the spkg is installed. But the fonts need to be installed in the right place...
comment:37 Changed 9 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Ok then, LGTM.
comment:38 Changed 9 years ago by
 Owner changed from mpatel to (none)
I decided to try something random to see if I was running the right notebook. So I tried #3154 first, and it appears that it is *NOT* fixed by this notebook upgrade. Other things I tried are fixed though.
comment:39 Changed 9 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:40 Changed 9 years ago by
comment:41 Changed 9 years ago by
 Merged in set to sage4.3.2
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:42 Changed 9 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage4.3.3 to sage4.3.2
If it's possible, I'd like to get into 0.7.1 as many of the now remaining "needs review" tickets as we can. I'm rebasing these now.