-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 161
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
FR package broken in stable-4.11 branch #3418
Comments
Just to clarify, with "regression was introduced by", I did not mean to imply that the commit / PR by @hulpke I pointed out are at fault -- indeed, I agree with @hulpke that this is almost certainly not the case. Nevertheless, with that the commit, the regression first showed up, hence my wording. In any case, I will phrase this more carefully in the future to avoid misunderstandings, sorry for that! Knowing the first commit in gap with which the regression first appeared still is helpful in narrowing down its cause. |
Looking a bit closer, the infinite recursion involves an orbit stabilizer computation, and a And this is in turn caused by the statement
|
@fingolfin
I have used both 4 and 5 in similar circumstances. |
I am not in favour of options 1,2,3 and 5, that leaves me with preferring option 4... |
to allow skipping parent membership assertion. This addresses gap-system#3418
I have added a "noassert" option in #3425, that implements option 4 I sketched above. That is in FR, the problematic closure call should be done with an added |
The problem with options 3, 4 and 5 is that we made a change that broke the tests of a package which worked fine before; now we are asking the package author (@laurentbartholdi ) to make a change and release a new version to deal with what we did. That's not quite optimal... Normally, I'd expect that we'd at least submit a PR to the package author making that change for them. At the very, very least, we should talk to them about this. |
Yes, sorry that I was not specific enough. By "Add an option to skip the assertion in particular settings" I did not mean that the user has to specify a command line option - I had a hope (maybe wrongly) that one could detect programmatically in which setting we operate and omit an assertion if necessary. Looking again at the code, I am not even sure that this is doable. OTOH, the assertion is new, added 20 days ago, and it's not a part of the fix made in #3397, so maybe removing it completely will not be deteriorating after all... |
There are 3 levels the consider:
- package user
- package internals
- gap internals
I could rather have such changes at the deepest level. Or perhaps we need a
'NC' version of some commands to avoid falling into recursions; or extra
filters that are set to trigger finer methods?
|
to allow skipping parent membership assertion. This addresses gap-system#3418
to allow skipping parent membership assertion. This addresses #3418
So, #3425 has been merged, with "noassert" option added in b6e34f0. Now FR should make use of it - @laurentbartholdi will you be able to do this and publish a new release, please? |
Update: this still waits for the new FR release. I have just submitted PR gap-packages/fr#34 attempting to fix the problem in FR. |
It seems FR works with GAP 4.11.1 and with GAP master (and thus the upcoming 4.12). |
I am afraid FR package is broken by some changes in the master branch. First time observed in https://travis-ci.org/gap-infra/gap-docker-pkg-tests-master/jobs/519063953 11 days ago:
Also reported at gap-packages/fr#33
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: