A computer algebra system written in pure Python http://sympy.org/ . To get started to with contributing https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/Introduction-to-contributing
25 in sieve is a membership test operation in Python. It evaluates to False as sieve is the list of prime numbers and 25 is not a prime.
Hello, I want to write a test case to check if a certain function is called.
But I the closest one I could find, is to make an arbitrary function which can raise a mock exception when called, and catching up via
However, I think this method cannot be used to check whether the function can call any default APIs from sympy.
I need some help about this
But I the closest one I could find, is to make an arbitrary function which can raise a mock exception when called, and catching up via
raises().However, I think this method cannot be used to check whether the function can call any default APIs from sympy.
I need some help about this
Hi while running the doc tests, there are a sequence of tests which give :
"ttk::ThemeChanged"
can't invoke "event" command: application has been destroyed
while executing
"event generate $w <<ThemeChanged>>"
(procedure "ttk::ThemeChanged" line 6)
invoked from withinnamely test_plot.py and test_plot_implicit.py . Are these necessary if the application has been destroyed? Or can they be removed?
@jksuom
It is about testing an higher order function, that it really can call a specific method in regards to parameters or keywords passed.
There are some examples like #15207, where a higher order function can set a specific internal function to call,
and I want to figure out how to write tests for such cases, so that such functions like _iszero() or simplify() is really called once inside the routine.
It is about testing an higher order function, that it really can call a specific method in regards to parameters or keywords passed.
There are some examples like #15207, where a higher order function can set a specific internal function to call,
and I want to figure out how to write tests for such cases, so that such functions like _iszero() or simplify() is really called once inside the routine.
@jksuom
In terms of testing only while developing locally, that can be a viable option.
But for introducing any unit test to certify that it is supposed to work after any other changes in the future,
I don't think there are much viable options other than introducing some backdoors for debug mode or such.
However, I had found an interesting example called Mock
import mock # conda install mock
from sympy import *
from sympy.matrices.matrices import _iszero as _iszero_copy
from sympy.matrices.matrices import _is_zero_after_expand_mul as _is_zero_after_expand_mul_copy
iszero_mock = mock.Mock(side_effect=_iszero_copy)
iszeroafterexpandmul_mock = mock.Mock(side_effect=_is_zero_after_expand_mul_copy)
@mock.patch('sympy.matrices._is_zero_after_expand_mul', iszeroafterexpandmul_mock)
@mock.patch('sympy.matrices._iszero', iszero_mock)
def test_1():
Matrix([[1,2,3,4],[5,6,7,8],[9,10,11,12],[13,14,15,16]]).det(method='lu')
@mock.patch('sympy.matrices._is_zero_after_expand_mul', iszeroafterexpandmul_mock)
@mock.patch('sympy.matrices._iszero', iszero_mock)
def test_2():
Matrix([[1,2,3,4],[5,6,7,8],[9,10,11,12],[13,14,15,16]]).det(method='bareiss')
#Print how many times each intercepted function is being called
test_1()
print("Total number of _iszero calls from det(method='lu') :",iszero_mock.call_count)
print("Total number of _is_zero_after_expand_mul calls from det(method='lu') :",iszeroafterexpandmul_mock.call_count)
iszero_mock.reset_mock()
iszeroafterexpandmul_mock.reset_mock()
test_2()
print("Total number of _iszero calls from det(method='bareiss') :",iszero_mock.call_count)
print("Total number of _is_zero_after_expand_mul calls from det(method='bareiss') :",iszeroafterexpandmul_mock.call_count)
iszero_mock.reset_mock()
iszeroafterexpandmul_mock.reset_mock()Total number of _iszero calls from det(method='lu') : 7
Total number of _is_zero_after_expand_mul calls from det(method='lu') : 0
Total number of _iszero calls from det(method='bareiss') : 0
Total number of _is_zero_after_expand_mul calls from det(method='bareiss') : 4Which seems able to intercept any calls in the routine, and collecting the number of calls, of any internal or external APIs used within a function.
However, I don't know that this feature is yet implemented in sympy's pytest or travis.
Hello @jksuom @asmeurer @moorepants I would like to work on this sympy/sympy#15178.Please let me know how can we check the actual speed of execution of these methods and do we need to alter the code for
solve method so it does not return inverse of matrix ?
Unless it is just a performance improvement. In that case, you can add a benchmark to the benchmarks repo. Or if it's a major improvement you can add a test that runs quickly without the improvement but would hang without the improvement, so any regression would easily be noticed.
error: Command "/usr/bin/gfortran -Wall -g -fno-second-underscore -fPIC -O3 -funroll-loops -I/tmp/tmps06bd4m5/src.linux-x86_64-3.7 -I/home/hen/miniconda/envs/py37/lib/python3.7/site-packages/numpy/core/include -I/home/hen/miniconda/envs/py37/include/python3.7m -c -c wrapped_code_1.f90 -o /tmp/tmps06bd4m5/wrapped_code_1.o" failed with exit status 1
wrapped_code_1.f90:54:13:
REAL*8 :: Mod
1
Error: Symbol ‘mod’ at (1) already has basic type of REAL
I was in here a couple months ago and it was suggested it could be a Windows issue, so I finally tried it out on Linux. Same problem
I tracked it down to a duplicated line in the generated code
...
REAL*8, parameter :: pi = 3.1415926535897932d0
REAL*8 :: Mod
REAL*8 :: Mod
...
So, I guess my questions are: where to look in SymPy for the source of this problem? Probably over my head to try to fix it, I have zero familiarity with the interals, but I could try.
Or, what's the easiest way to work around this, i.e. intercept the code and modify it before the compilation step
Any advice would be appreciated
Or if it's just one commit it's easier to just create a new branch off of 1.3 and cherry-pick it.
It is not possible (because of this). It seems that
k_sym and symbols should be considered as parameters with a default value, not as keyword parameters.
Right. The context was actually if
stirling should be a class inheriting from Function. Since, it is not possible to include kwargs while Function evaluation, the interpretation of args might become harder for stirling, if it is made a class.
I'm currently pondering on an API to connect them
do you think that the current
.rewrite( ) API is good enough?
I'm actually fixing that PR
In [9]: latex(H(i, j))
Out[9]: 'H^{i}^{j}'
do you think I should change it?
You're right
! Double superscript.
l.6 H^{i}^
{j}