Opened 9 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

Last modified 9 years ago

#9392 closed defect (fixed)

Broken docstring in binpacking method

Reported by: ncohen Owned by: jason, jkantor
Priority: major Milestone: sage-4.5
Component: numerical Keywords:
Cc: rlm, leif Merged in: sage-4.5.alpha3
Authors: Nathann Cohen Reviewers: Leif Leonhardy, Robert Miller
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Description

Not really broken, but subject to change of behaviours depending on the solver used.... ;-)

Nathann

Attachments (2)

trac_9392.patch​ (1.2 KB) - added by ncohen 9 years ago.
trac_9392-first_reviewer.patch​ (1.4 KB) - added by leif 9 years ago.
Fixes non-optional doctesting. Apply on top of Nathann's patch.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (12)

Changed 9 years ago by ncohen

comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by ncohen

  • Status changed from new to needs_review

Here it is !

Nathann

comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by leif

  • Cc leif added

comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by leif

  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_work

Nathann's patch fails on normal (non-optional) doctesting because of undefined variables/some sections not marked "optional".

Changed 9 years ago by leif

Fixes non-optional doctesting. Apply on top of Nathann's patch.

comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by leif

  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

With my reviewer patch applied, at least passes reasonable tests (-long, -long with -only-optional=cbc,glpk in sage/numerical) on a 32-bit system where the doctest previously did not fail...

Leaving as "needs review" for further testing.

comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by rlm

  • Authors set to Nathann Cohen
  • Reviewers set to Leif Leonhardy, Robert Miller

Doesn't this depend on #9312?

comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by ncohen

Not really... Though if we say it depends on #9312, then we do not need to add these "optional" flags anymore :-D

Nathann

comment:7 Changed 9 years ago by rlm

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by rlm

  • Merged in set to sage-4.5.alpha3
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed

comment:9 follow-up: Changed 9 years ago by leif

Well, if GLPK gets a standard package, we should definitely remove the optional tags, since otherwise these tests are omitted in the usual test process.

(We could just substitute optional by standard to make life easier in case the package is made optional again for some reason. Same for Nathann's patch at #9312.)

comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 Changed 9 years ago by leif

Replying to leif:

Well, if GLPK gets a standard package, we should definitely remove the optional tags, since otherwise these tests are omitted in the usual test process.

This is addressed at #9432.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.