Implement generic testing from #6343 for matrices #6936

jasongrout · 2009-09-15T18:20:03Z

The patch calls TestSuite().run() every time load(dumps()) was called in the matrix directory. I also renamed and adapted an existing _test_pickle() into _test_reduce().

CC: @kcrisman @nthiery @hivert @rbeezer

Component: linear algebra

Keywords: TestSuite

Author: Jason Grout

Reviewer: Nicolas M. Thiéry

Merged: sage-4.3.1.rc1

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6936

jasongrout · 2009-09-15T18:23:15Z

comment:2

This, of course, depends on the patches at #6343.

kcrisman · 2009-09-15T18:30:22Z

comment:4

Ticket #6934 is related, of course.

nthiery · 2009-09-16T07:52:10Z

Changed keywords from none to TestSuite

nthiery · 2009-09-16T07:52:10Z

Reviewer: Nicolas M. Thiéry

nthiery · 2009-09-16T07:52:10Z

comment:5

Hi Jason,

I am glad to hear that TestSuite is useful, even before the category
code gets in :-)

Some suggestions:

remove the loads(dumps(a)) == a tests, since anyway they are
done by TestSuite
Maybe rename _test_matrix_pickle by _test_reduce?

In fact, it would be nice to have this test whenever __reduce__ is
implemented (even though it's tested by test_pickle anyway). An
option would be to lift _test_reduce to SageObject, and add a
conditional in _test_reduce to do nothing if _reduce_ is not
defined. The downside is that, if someone inadvertently remove
__reduce__, then this won't be detected. Any better idea?
About _test_minpoly (and in general _test methods for elements):
One thing which is not yet clear to me is whether the _test method
should be on the elements or the parent. The former sounds more
natural; however, with the later, one can use the information from
the parent to build a good set of elements on which to run the
test.

One option would be to add to each parent a method _test_elements
that would run TestSuite on some_elements(). However, there
typically might be very expensive test methods that one will want
to run on just a couple small elements, and other test methods that
one will want to test with many large ones.

But that's just food for thoughts for the long run

Other than that, I will be very happy being a reviewer for this patch,
and put a positive review.

I haven't run the tests yet. But from the comments above, I gather
that some tests are broken, not because this patch is wrong, but
because it uncovers bugs elsewhere. Should those be fixed before
setting a positive review on this one?

jasongrout · 2009-09-17T08:29:13Z

comment:7

Replying to @nthiery:

Hi Jason,

I am glad to hear that TestSuite is useful, even before the category
code gets in :-)

Some suggestions:

remove the loads(dumps(a)) == a tests, since anyway they are
done by TestSuite

The -review.patch patch does this.

Maybe rename _test_matrix_pickle by _test_reduce?

The -review.patch patch does this.

In fact, it would be nice to have this test whenever __reduce__ is
implemented (even though it's tested by test_pickle anyway). An
option would be to lift _test_reduce to SageObject, and add a
conditional in _test_reduce to do nothing if _reduce_ is not
defined. The downside is that, if someone inadvertently remove
__reduce__, then this won't be detected. Any better idea?

About _test_minpoly (and in general _test methods for elements):
One thing which is not yet clear to me is whether the _test method
should be on the elements or the parent. The former sounds more
natural; however, with the later, one can use the information from
the parent to build a good set of elements on which to run the
test.

One option would be to add to each parent a method _test_elements
that would run TestSuite on some_elements(). However, there
typically might be very expensive test methods that one will want
to run on just a couple small elements, and other test methods that
one will want to test with many large ones.

But that's just food for thoughts for the long run

The rest of these items sound controversial enough that they should be brought up on sage-devel.

Other than that, I will be very happy being a reviewer for this patch,
and put a positive review.

If you're happy with the changes, can you mark this positive review?

I haven't run the tests yet. But from the comments above, I gather
that some tests are broken, not because this patch is wrong, but
because it uncovers bugs elsewhere. Should those be fixed before
setting a positive review on this one?

I'd say merge this, since it uncovers existing bugs, but doesn't introduce any. With this merged, those bugs will get fixed before the next release.

nthiery · 2009-09-17T19:53:41Z

comment:8

The -review.patch patch does this.

Thanks!

The rest of these items sound controversial enough that they should be brought up on sage-devel.

Do you mind doing it?

If you're happy with the changes, can you mark this positive review?

Done! However, please someone run the tests. I don't have a sage devel under hand.

I'd say merge this, since it uncovers existing bugs, but doesn't introduce any. With this merged, those bugs will get fixed before the next release.

Sounds good to me.

sagetrac-mvngu · 2009-09-26T07:50:26Z

comment:9

With trac-6936-matrix-generic-doctesting-minpoly.patch, I got a hunk failure:

[mvngu@sage sage-main]$ hg qimport https://github.com/sagemath/sage/files/ticket6936/trac-6936-matrix-generic-doctesting-minpoly.patch.gz && hg qpush
adding trac-6936-matrix-generic-doctesting-minpoly.patch to series file
applying trac-6936-matrix-generic-doctesting-minpoly.patch
patching file sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx
Hunk #2 FAILED at 1190
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx.rej
patch failed, unable to continue (try -v)
patch failed, rejects left in working dir
Errors during apply, please fix and refresh trac-6936-matrix-generic-doctesting-minpoly.patch

The hunk in question is

[mvngu@sage sage-main]$ cat sage/matrix/matrix2.pyx.rej
--- matrix2.pyx
+++ matrix2.pyx
@@ -1190,6 +1191,22 @@
         return mp
     
 
+    def _test_minpoly(self, **options):
+        """
+        Checks that :meth:`minpoly` works.
+
+        EXAMPLES::
+
+            sage: a=matrix([[1,2],[3,4]])
+            sage: a._test_minpoly()
+
+        """
+        if self.nrows()==self.ncols():
+            tester = self._tester(**options)
+            # At least we'll check that the minimal polynomial kills the
+            # matrix.
+            tester.assert_(self.minpoly().subs(x=self).is_zero())
+
     def charpoly(self, var='x', algorithm="hessenberg"):
         r"""
         Return the characteristic polynomial of self, as a polynomial over

jasongrout · 2009-10-01T05:56:25Z

comment:10

Okay, it's rebased; the problem was that "charpoly" changed its default algorithm to "None". Since that doesn't affect anything in this patch, I'll set it back to positive review.

mwhansen · 2009-10-15T10:06:45Z

Merged: sage-4.2.alpha0

mwhansen · 2009-10-16T07:15:27Z

comment:12

I get failures in these files:

        sage -t  devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix_generic_dense.pyx # 1 doctests failed
        sage -t  devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix_integer_2x2.pyx # 1 doctests failed
        sage -t  devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix_dense.pyx # 1 doctests failed
        sage -t  devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix1.pyx # 1 doctests failed
        sage -t  devel/sage-main/sage/matrix/matrix_symbolic_dense.pyx # 1 doctests failed

One of them is definitely #5639.

jasongrout · 2009-10-16T08:23:02Z

comment:13

Aren't these bugs that are exposed by this patch, rather than bugs caused by this patch? If so, then new tickets should be opened, rather than changing this to needs work.

hivert · 2009-10-19T17:19:34Z

comment:14

Hi there,

When creating #5274 it was my intend to implement this generic testing. So one probably wan't to close #5274 as a duplicate. However, It should be a good idea to include test_trivial_matrices_inverse from matrix_space.py in this generic testing infrastruture, since it currently test the different space by hand.

Cheers,

Florent

jasongrout · 2010-01-19T02:35:31Z

Attachment: trac-6936-matrix-generic-doctesting.patch.gz

jasongrout · 2010-01-19T02:37:57Z

Changed merged from sage-4.2.alpha0 to none

jasongrout · 2010-01-19T02:37:57Z

comment:15

Okay, I took out the minpoly test, so this patch just implements the generic testing infrastructure. The minpoly test will go on another ticket so the doctest failures can be dealt with there.

mwhansen · 2010-01-19T02:41:37Z

comment:16

This looks good to me. Please put the new ticket number for minpoly here.

jasongrout · 2010-01-19T02:51:31Z

comment:17

The minpoly ticket is #7989.

rlmill · 2010-01-19T05:33:07Z

Merged: sage-4.3.1.rc1

jasongrout added this to the sage-4.3.1 milestone Sep 15, 2009

jasongrout added c: linear algebra labels Sep 15, 2009

jasongrout assigned williamstein Sep 15, 2009

jasongrout added the s: needs review label Sep 15, 2009

nthiery added s: needs work and removed s: positive review labels Sep 16, 2009

jasongrout added s: needs review and removed s: needs work labels Sep 17, 2009

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

nthiery added s: positive review and removed s: needs review labels Sep 17, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin changed the title ~~Implement generic testing from #6343 for matrices~~ [needs rebase] Implement generic testing from #6343 for matrices Sep 26, 2009

jasongrout changed the title ~~[needs rebase] Implement generic testing from #6343 for matrices~~ Implement generic testing from #6343 for matrices Oct 1, 2009

mwhansen removed the s: positive review label Oct 15, 2009

mwhansen closed this as completed Oct 15, 2009

mwhansen added the s: needs work label Oct 16, 2009

mwhansen reopened this Oct 16, 2009

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

jasongrout added s: needs review and removed s: needs work labels Jan 19, 2010

mwhansen added s: positive review and removed s: needs review labels Jan 19, 2010

rlmill mannequin removed the s: positive review label Jan 19, 2010

rlmill mannequin closed this as completed Jan 19, 2010

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Implement generic testing from #6343 for matrices #6936

Implement generic testing from #6343 for matrices #6936

jasongrout commented Sep 15, 2009

jasongrout commented Sep 15, 2009

kcrisman commented Sep 15, 2009

nthiery commented Sep 16, 2009

nthiery commented Sep 16, 2009

nthiery commented Sep 16, 2009

jasongrout commented Sep 17, 2009

This comment has been minimized.

nthiery commented Sep 17, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Sep 26, 2009

jasongrout commented Oct 1, 2009

mwhansen commented Oct 15, 2009

mwhansen commented Oct 16, 2009

jasongrout commented Oct 16, 2009

hivert commented Oct 19, 2009

jasongrout commented Jan 19, 2010

This comment has been minimized.

jasongrout commented Jan 19, 2010

jasongrout commented Jan 19, 2010

mwhansen commented Jan 19, 2010

jasongrout commented Jan 19, 2010

rlmill mannequin commented Jan 19, 2010

Implement generic testing from #6343 for matrices #6936

Implement generic testing from #6343 for matrices #6936

Comments

jasongrout commented Sep 15, 2009

jasongrout commented Sep 15, 2009

kcrisman commented Sep 15, 2009

nthiery commented Sep 16, 2009

nthiery commented Sep 16, 2009

nthiery commented Sep 16, 2009

jasongrout commented Sep 17, 2009

This comment has been minimized.

nthiery commented Sep 17, 2009

sagetrac-mvngu mannequin commented Sep 26, 2009

jasongrout commented Oct 1, 2009

mwhansen commented Oct 15, 2009

mwhansen commented Oct 16, 2009

jasongrout commented Oct 16, 2009

hivert commented Oct 19, 2009

jasongrout commented Jan 19, 2010

This comment has been minimized.

jasongrout commented Jan 19, 2010

jasongrout commented Jan 19, 2010

mwhansen commented Jan 19, 2010

jasongrout commented Jan 19, 2010

rlmill mannequin commented Jan 19, 2010