Opened 10 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#9581 closed defect (fixed)
edge_incident bug in generic_graph.py
Reported by: | vdelecroix | Owned by: | vdelecroix |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-4.6.1 |
Component: | graph theory | Keywords: | graph |
Cc: | ncohen, rmiller | Merged in: | sage-4.6.1.alpha0 |
Authors: | Vincent Delecroix | Reviewers: | Nathann Cohen |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
Currently, the edge_incident method of generic graph calls edge_boundary which first take a lot of time and secondly does not work
sage: G = Graph(loops=True) sage: G.add_edge(0,0) sage: G.edges() [(0, 0, None)] sage: list(G.edge_iterator(0)) [(0, 0, None)] sage: G.edges_incident(0) []
The ticket also aims to reduce multiple calls (edge_boundary does not call directly edge_iterator as it should).
It is also the occasion to add some doc and correct some typos.
Apply first :
Attachments (3)
Change History (15)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
Changed 10 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by
Nathan, Why did you put this ticket as needs_review? It seems to be important to be a lot more explicit in the definition of each function of generic_graph and implement all the cases in examples... perhaps it is the matter of another ticket...
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Hello ! Well, if you think it needs more documenation or tests, this ticket certainly is the one that should contain it... I thought the behaviour of these functions did not change that much, only "internal modifications", so... But I'm sorry for this, all you just said is better done here ! :-)
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Hello !!! I can not apply this patch on 4.6.alpha3, looks like it needs to be rebased ^^;
Nathann
comment:7 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Positive review to this rebased version :-)
Nathann
comment:9 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:10 Changed 9 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-4.6 to sage-4.6.1
comment:11 Changed 9 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Nathann Cohen
comment:12 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-4.6.1.alpha0
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Excellent ! Thank youuuuuuuuuuuuuu !!
Your patch is very nice, applies fine and everything.. I would just like to append a short line, because of a missing "if". If you agree with this, let's say this ticket is positively reviewed ! :-)
Nathann