On Feb 22, 11:20 pm, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Built ok (kubuntu 7.70, gcc version 4.1.3 20070929 (prerelease)
> (Ubuntu 4.1.2-16ubuntu2))
Hi John,
> The following tests failed:
>
> sage -t devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py
> sage -t devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py
> Total time for all tests: 2712.3 seconds
> Please see /home/jec/sage-2.10.2.rc0/tmp/test.log for the complete log
> from this test.
>
> Here are the details:
>
> sage -t
> devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py**********************************************************************
> File "number_field.py", line 2619:
> sage: [Plist[i]==K.ideal(pilist[i]) for i in range(len(Plist))]
> Expected:
> [True, False, True]
> Got:
> [True, False, False]
> **********************************************************************
> 1 items had failures:
> 1 of 13 in __main__.example_78
> ***Test Failed*** 1 failures.
> For whitespace errors, see the file .doctest_number_field.py
> [21.8 s]
> sage -t devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_base.pyx
> [2.9 s]
> sage -t devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx
> [6.9 s]
> sage -t
> devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element_quadratic.pyx
> [2.8 s]
> sage -t
> devel/sage-main/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py**********************************************************************
> File "number_field_ideal.py", line 868:
> sage: I.prime_factors()
> Expected:
> [Fractional ideal (-w)]
> Got:
> [Fractional ideal (w)]
> **********************************************************************
>
> The second one is an equivalent valid output, which can be fixed by
> changing the expected output.
>
> The first one is a doctest I wrote; I think it best to just delete
> the last line from the doctest (lines 2619, 2620) since (1) the
> factors produced by prime_factors() are not in a deterministic order
> (I think), and (2) the exact result in the failing line depends on
> what is returned by a pari function, which may also not be
> deterministic. But the rest of this block of tests is 100% ok.
Excellent. Could you then referee Craig's patch for both issues at
#2257? It is the last patch scheduled for 2.10.2, so then we can start
the release process.
> John
>
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
