Opened 8 years ago

Closed 8 years ago

#9930 closed defect (fixed)

Additional test in is_even_hole_free

Reported by: ncohen Owned by: jason, ncohen, rlm
Priority: major Milestone: sage-4.6
Component: graph theory Keywords:
Cc: Merged in: sage-4.6.alpha2
Authors: Nathann Cohen Reviewers: Dmitrii Pasechnik
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Description (last modified by ncohen)

This bug has been reported in #9925, and fixed by #9420. We just want to make sure it does not appear again ! :-)

Requires :

Nathann

Attachments (1)

trac_9930.patch (1.3 KB) - added by ncohen 8 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (12)

comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by ncohen

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

Changed 8 years ago by ncohen

comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by ncohen

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:3 follow-up: Changed 8 years ago by ncohen

I tried the loop included in this patch with 100 000 instead of 100, and it still works.... Sounds like we are safe on this side :-)

Nathann

comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 ; follow-up: Changed 8 years ago by dimpase

  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_info

Replying to ncohen:

I tried the loop included in this patch with 100 000 instead of 100, and it still works.... Sounds like we are safe on this side :-)

Nathann

unless there is a probabilistic argument that with high probability we run into the cases we are interested in testing here, this won't fly... Random tests don't prove much otherwise. And here you don't even know what to look for, right?

comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 Changed 8 years ago by ncohen

unless there is a probabilistic argument that with high probability we run into the cases we are interested in testing here, this won't fly... Random tests don't prove much otherwise. And here you don't even know what to look for, right?

Well, there is a practical argument saying that the mistake appeared with a probability of 1%, as my comments on #9925 indicated (and which I tried on even longer sequences of tests). Besides, the graph I create from its sparse6_string is known to create a mistake on the current version of Sage. What do you think we could do besides that ?

Nathann

comment:6 follow-up: Changed 8 years ago by dimpase

the graph I create from its sparse6_string is known to create a mistake on the current version of Sage. 

OK, this is fair enough. I'll give it a positive review as soon as it is marked as "needs review"

comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 8 years ago by ncohen

  • Status changed from needs_info to needs_review

OK, this is fair enough. I'll give it a positive review as soon as it is marked as "needs review"

Then let it be ! :-)

Nathann

comment:8 Changed 8 years ago by dimpase

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

comment:9 Changed 8 years ago by ncohen

Thanksssssss !! And many other thanks for the review of subgraph_search :-)

Nathann

comment:10 Changed 8 years ago by mpatel

  • Reviewers set to Dmitrii Pasechnik

comment:11 Changed 8 years ago by mpatel

  • Merged in set to sage-4.6.alpha2
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.