Conversation
|
damn, there remains annoying failing doctests in |
|
One of the remaining bugs is now |
|
Okay, I've figured it out. The change in the category from Algebras to Rings means that the base ring coercion is no longer provided by default. It's actually somewhat amazing that this doesn't end up going through an infinite loop, but that is how if P == base_ring:
return self._coerce_map_from_base_ring()to the beginning of There are some other issues/inconsistencies with polynomials over The univariate case is wrong IMO. The change in I am not sure about the change for |
|
Thanks a lot, Travis ! I was worrying to be unable to debug that issue about I propose to keep the other inconsistencies of polynomials over the zero ring for later. I have added the suggested doctest in For the change in I have disabled a doctest in the testsuite of Laurent polynomials over |
|
no idea what the CI complains about. Something about "modularity", it seems...... |
The failure is unrelated to this PR and tracked in #37734. |
|
Setting to positive since Matthias approved, unless Travis disagrees. |
|
I am not sure how to handle dependencies here ; I try hard to avoid them, but now #37778 is a reasonable one.. By the way, thanks for investigating and finding the cure, Travis ! |
|
I would prefer to have #37778 as a dependency since it fixes a regression here. I know it is annoying for you, especially since it is just to prevent a doctest from failing otherwise. Yet, it would be better to not disable the test. I could also make #37778 a dependency on this that undoes the skipped test, but that is somewhat contrary to the logical flow of the PRs. Anyways, I will leave the decision up to you. |
tscrim
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you. Once the bot comes back green, positive review.
|
Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit eb758e6; changes) is ready! 🎉 |
|
As expected, the lights are not green. As I said, I have no idea if it is possible to declare a dependency in such a way that the CI will merge the branches before testing. |
As far as I know, you have to merge the dependency into your branch. |
|
I've repaired the CI. It complains: |
|
You can fix the failure in "test-mod" like this: diff --git a/pkgs/sagemath-categories/known-test-failures.json b/pkgs/sagemath-categories/known-test-failures.json
index ab27f65ca8d..f8303460c94 100644
--- a/pkgs/sagemath-categories/known-test-failures.json
+++ b/pkgs/sagemath-categories/known-test-failures.json
@@ -597,6 +597,10 @@
"failed": true,
"ntests": 126
},
+ "sage.categories.noetherian_rings": {
+ "failed": true,
+ "ntests": 19
+ },
"sage.categories.number_fields": {
"failed": true,
"ntests": 41(see https://deploy-livedoc--sagemath.netlify.app/html/en/developer/doctesting#updating-baseline-files) |
| def extra_super_categories(self): | ||
| r""" | ||
| Let Sage knows that finite commutative rings | ||
| are Noetherian. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
check whether you want to use "Noetherian" or "noetherian" throughout the text
Co-authored-by: Matthias Köppe <mkoeppe@math.ucdavis.edu>
sagemathgh-37719: Refactor ring categories A somewhat large refactoring of some of the auld classes for rings, and related categories - introducing a new category of Noetherian rings - moving some methods in appropriate categories - fixing necessary details ### 📝 Checklist - [x] The title is concise and informative. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [ ] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. Depends on sagemath#37778 URL: sagemath#37719 Reported by: Frédéric Chapoton Reviewer(s): Matthias Köppe, Travis Scrimshaw
sagemathgh-37719: Refactor ring categories A somewhat large refactoring of some of the auld classes for rings, and related categories - introducing a new category of Noetherian rings - moving some methods in appropriate categories - fixing necessary details ### 📝 Checklist - [x] The title is concise and informative. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [ ] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [ ] I have created tests covering the changes. - [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly. Depends on sagemath#37778 URL: sagemath#37719 Reported by: Frédéric Chapoton Reviewer(s): Matthias Köppe, Travis Scrimshaw
A somewhat large refactoring of some of the auld classes for rings, and related categories
📝 Checklist
Depends on #37778