-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 66
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
Update to latest AA, Nemo #1294
Conversation
ff9f7e1
to
b6a029e
Compare
The invalidation count increases from 610 to 612. This is expected: the new "ring with variable names" constructor code" introduced this raises in AA, and we decided it was not important enough to hold back merging. (I plan to revisit this and other invalidations at another time). The errors with Julia 1.6 are all (?) about failures to infer return types -- they are inferred as
What I don't understand is why these only happen in Julia 1.6 but not 1.9, and how the changes in this PR might be causing them... Well perhaps by making some return types harder to infer and 1.9 is just better at doing it... ? But that's still rather vague. I guess it'll require looking at some of these cases more closely? Finally the error with Julia nightly I don't understand:
|
The failure on nightly is "expected", see JuliaLang/julia#51996. The error on 1.6 is not nice, but it seems that the Nemo/AA changes led to some less precise inference. |
I tracked down the Julia 1.6 type instability to one concrete example where I finally see some relation to the AA updates:
This in turn is due to this code in AA:
I suspect the |
Hm, yeah, I am not happy about the |
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1294 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 5.53% 74.56% +69.03%
===========================================
Files 346 346
Lines 111652 111795 +143
===========================================
+ Hits 6177 83362 +77185
+ Misses 105475 28433 -77042
|
With the new AA release, tests pass in 1.6. However, weirdly there is a failure with Julia 1.9 now -- though it passes on my computer, and I don't see a relation to the changes in this PR right now. Perhaps re-run the tests, @thofma ?
|
Have not seen this in a while. I have restarted the test. |
I will merge once I landed #1306. |
737b8cc
to
01788b3
Compare
Finally passing... |
I am a bit reluctant to merge this before Nemocas/AbstractAlgebra.jl#1518 is fixed. |
test/Aqua.jl
Outdated
@@ -4,6 +4,6 @@ using Aqua | |||
Aqua.test_all( | |||
Hecke; | |||
ambiguities=false, # TODO: fix ambiguities | |||
piracies=false # TODO: fix piracy | |||
piracies=true # TODO: fix piracy |
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.
piracies=true # TODO: fix piracy | |
piracies=false # TODO: fix piracy |
This change shouldn't be in this PR.
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.
Argh, indeed, that slipped in while I made another experiment. Thank you
- CyclotomicRealSubfield -> cyclotomic_real_subfield - isconstant -> is_constant
OK I think this is ready now, @thofma ? |
vcat
to `reduce(vcat, ...)