-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 58
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add and use zero!, one!, neg! methods #1869
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
9521cf0
to
905bba5
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1869 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 87.34% 86.98% -0.36%
==========================================
Files 97 97
Lines 35832 35949 +117
==========================================
- Hits 31296 31272 -24
- Misses 4536 4677 +141 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Seems to be ok. The unfortunate thing is that we would not notice if a method went missing. |
905bba5
to
a8190be
Compare
a8190be
to
a622e98
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
found some things. for the valuation issue, can you please check all other relative series types as well (I might have forgotten a comment somewhere).
Overall, I would really like to have Nemocas/AbstractAlgebra.jl#1814 in, but let's merge this once the comments are resolved and fix any issues later
else | ||
z.data = sub!(z.data, R.n, a.data) | ||
end | ||
return z |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
no idea if this is correct (seems non-trivial enough at least to deserve a comment)
Thanks for the careful feedback, @lgoettgens . I am busy with other things right now, but I plan to go over it all, and maybe use this as incentive to add a few more ring interface tests which hopefully will detect all my mistakes here, to increase confidence in this and further work. |
Co-authored-by: Lars Göttgens <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Lars Göttgens <[email protected]>
I think this is ready in so far as that I addressed review feedback by @lgoettgens and am not aware of other issues right now. But I'd still feel better if we first had the conformance tests in place to properly check all of these. Thankfully @lgoettgens is working on that. |
Add a bunch of
one!
andneg!
methods. Also usedzero!
,one!
,neg!
in a few more spots. And placed these function in a uniform way into the code based (i.e. these are now always the first three unsafe operations).This is incomplete in so far as there are still types missing a "native"
neg!
(and in some very few cases alsoone!
).Unfortunately this function is not covered by the ring conformance test suite -- we should change that (in AA).