Sorted containers -> new iteration protocol #384
Conversation
|
The CI tests on my pull request are failing because of the ambiguity-detector is detecting ambiguities in 0.7. However, these ambiguities are being caused by source files other than the ones modified in this PR. |
|
Question for the experts: Is there a good way to test that the new definitions in my PR for |
|
Hi Stephen, you’ll probably want to ask this on Discourse, and/or ping Keno
directly.
Cheers,
Kevin
…On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:55 PM StephenVavasis ***@***.***> wrote:
Question for the experts: Is there a good way to test that the new
definitions in my PR for IteratorEltype and IteratorSize are correct? I
didn't know what to put in the test set to test these functions.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#384 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANoEj_iviwk0upK3M4A3FFlARKd5aRlks5t02IRgaJpZM4UHziJ>
.
|
StephenVavasis
force-pushed
the
newiterationsortedcontainers
branch
from
28f49e1
to
510dd8c
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #384 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 96.59% 96.07% -0.53%
==========================================
Files 31 31
Lines 2318 2367 +49
==========================================
+ Hits 2239 2274 +35
- Misses 79 93 +14
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
The CI checks are now passed, but the coverage has dropped. One reason the coverage dropped is because I didn't test the new |
|
As an aside: I know Base has some undocumented infrastructure for iterating over keys (e.g., |
On branch newiterationsortedcontainers Changes to be committed: modified: ../docs/src/sorted_containers.md modified: DataStructures.jl modified: balanced_tree.jl modified: container_loops.jl modified: ../test/test_sorted_containers.jl This commit updates container_loops.jl to use the new iteration protocol (introduced in 0.7.0-DEV). It should be backwards compatible with 0.6.2. In addition, it fixes a bug in container_loops.jl in which the length() function when applied to subranges (i.e., inclusive(a,b,c) or exclusive(a,b,c)) returned the length of the whole container instead of the length of the subrange. (There should be no value returned for the length of the subrange since the data structure does not support an O(1) algorithm or even O(log n) algorithm to compute the length.) Some other smaller changes in this commit are as follows. - IntSet was changed to BitSet (name change in 0.7.0-DEV) - Small updates to documentation - Some assert statements in balanced_tree.jl that were present during development are deleted. Add more tests for new length and eltype methods
StephenVavasis
force-pushed
the
newiterationsortedcontainers
branch
from
510dd8c
to
43425a7
Compare
|
I inserted additional tests in |
|
Since #28365 introduced deprecation messages, it would be great to get this merged. |
|
I can try to get back to work on this. I just looked at source file |
|
Withdrawn-- superseded by #426 . |
On branch newiterationsortedcontainers
Changes to be committed:
modified: ../docs/src/sorted_containers.md
modified: DataStructures.jl
modified: balanced_tree.jl
modified: container_loops.jl
modified: ../test/test_sorted_containers.jl
This commit updates container_loops.jl to use the new iteration protocol
(introduced in 0.7.0-DEV). It should be backwards compatible with 0.6.2.
In addition, it fixes a bug in container_loops.jl in which the length()
function when applied to subranges (i.e., inclusive(a,b,c) or
exclusive(a,b,c)) returned the length of the whole container instead
of the length of the subrange. (There should be no value returned
for the length of the subrange since the data structure does not support
an O(1) algorithm or even O(log n) algorithm to compute the length.)
Some other smaller changes in this commit are as follows.
during development are deleted.