Reject broken system PARI 2.11.3 and re-enable PARI library test in spkg-configure #29445

kliem · 2020-04-01T16:46:46Z

There are several failing doctests depending on the PARI version of the system, e.g.

File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1829, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field_ideal.NumberFieldFractionalIdeal.factor
Failed example:
    fact = F.factor(2); fact
Expected:
    (Fractional ideal (2*a^2 + 1))^2 * (Fractional ideal (-2*a^2))
Got:
    (Fractional ideal (-2*a^2 - 1))^2 * (Fractional ideal (2*a^2))

see e.g.

https://github.com/mkoeppe/sage/runs/542655863

This is the case because debian bullseye uses pari 2.11.3 (instead of pari 2.11.3). Many instances seem to fail, just because the choice of generators has changed. However, there is at least one thing really strange when upgrading to pari 2.11.3:

sage: y = var('y')
sage: pK = pari.bnfinit(y^3+3)
sage: pK.bnfisunit(pK.bnfunit()[0])
[1, Mod(1, 2)]~

CC: @mkoeppe @jdemeyer @orlitzky @dimpase

Component: number fields

Keywords: PARI

Author: Jonathan Kliem, Matthias Koeppe

Branch: c4a0a22

Reviewer: Matthias Koeppe, Jonathan Kliem

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/29445

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

kliem · 2020-04-01T20:13:13Z

comment:1

The following tests currently fail (depending on the PARI version):

sage -t src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 3426, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic.ideals_of_bdd_norm
Failed example:
    for n in d:
        print(n)
        for I in d[n]:
            print(I)
Expected:
    1
    Fractional ideal (1)
    2
    Fractional ideal (2, 1/2*a - 1/2)
    Fractional ideal (2, 1/2*a + 1/2)
    3
    Fractional ideal (3, 1/2*a - 1/2)
    Fractional ideal (3, 1/2*a + 1/2)
    4
...
Got:
    1
    Fractional ideal (1)
    2
    Fractional ideal (2, 1/2*a - 1/2)
    Fractional ideal (2, 1/2*a + 1/2)
    3
    Fractional ideal (3, 1/2*a + 1/2)
    Fractional ideal (3, 1/2*a - 1/2)
...

 File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 4547, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic._S_class_group_and_units
Failed example:
    K._S_class_group_and_units(tuple(K.primes_above(13)))
Expected:
    ([2/13*a^2 + 1/13*a - 677/13,
      1/13*a^2 + 7/13*a - 332/13,
      -1/13*a^2 + 6/13*a + 345/13,
      -1,
      2/13*a^2 + 1/13*a - 755/13,
      1/13*a^2 - 19/13*a - 7/13],
     [(Fractional ideal (11, a - 2), 2), (Fractional ideal (19, a + 7), 2)])
Got:
    ([2/13*a^2 + 1/13*a - 677/13,
      1/13*a^2 + 7/13*a - 332/13,
      -1/13*a^2 + 6/13*a + 345/13,
      -1,
      2/13*a^2 + 1/13*a - 755/13,
      1/13*a^2 + 20/13*a - 7/13],
     [(Fractional ideal (11, a - 2), 2), (Fractional ideal (19, a + 7), 2)])

File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 4705, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic.selmer_group
Failed example:
    K.selmer_group(K.primes_above(13), 2)
Expected:
    [2/13*a^2 + 1/13*a - 677/13,
     1/13*a^2 + 7/13*a - 332/13,
     -1/13*a^2 + 6/13*a + 345/13,
     -1,
     2/13*a^2 + 1/13*a - 755/13,
     1/13*a^2 - 19/13*a - 7/13,
     -1/13*a^2 + 45/13*a - 97/13,
     2/13*a^2 + 40/13*a - 27/13]
Got:
    [2/13*a^2 + 1/13*a - 677/13,
     1/13*a^2 + 7/13*a - 332/13,
     -1/13*a^2 + 6/13*a + 345/13,
     -1,
     2/13*a^2 + 1/13*a - 755/13,
     1/13*a^2 + 20/13*a - 7/13,
     1/13*a^2 - 45/13*a + 97/13,
     -2/13*a^2 - 40/13*a + 27/13]

File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 5357, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic.elements_of_norm
Failed example:
    K.elements_of_norm(7)
Expected:
    [7/225*a^2 - 7/75*a - 42/25]
Got:
    [28/225*a^2 + 77/75*a - 133/25]

File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 5460, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic.factor
Failed example:
    f = L.factor(a + 1); f
Expected:
    (Fractional ideal (1/2*a*b - a + 1/2)) * (Fractional ideal (-1/2*a*b - a + 1/2))
Got:
    (Fractional ideal (-1/2*b + 1/2*a + 1)) * (Fractional ideal (-1/2*a*b - a + 1/2))

 File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 6537, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic.uniformizer
Failed example:
    [K.uniformizer(P) for P,e in factor(K.ideal(7))]
Expected:
    [t^2 + 3*t + 1]
Got:
    [t^2 - 4*t + 1]

File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 6793, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic.S_unit_group
Failed example:
    U.log(u)
Expected:
    (1, 1, 4, 1, 5)
Got:
    (0, 1, 4, 1, 5)

File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 7803, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_absolute.optimized_representation
Failed example:
    K.optimized_representation()
Expected:
    (Number Field in a1 with defining polynomial x^3 - 7*x - 7,
     Ring morphism:
       From: Number Field in a1 with defining polynomial x^3 - 7*x - 7
       To:   Number Field in a with defining polynomial 7/9*x^3 + 7/3*x^2 - 56*x + 123
       Defn: a1 |--> 7/225*a^2 - 7/75*a - 42/25,
     Ring morphism:
       From: Number Field in a with defining polynomial 7/9*x^3 + 7/3*x^2 - 56*x + 123
       To:   Number Field in a1 with defining polynomial x^3 - 7*x - 7
       Defn: a |--> -15/7*a1^2 + 9)
Got:
    (Number Field in a1 with defining polynomial x^3 - 7*x - 7, Ring morphism:
       From: Number Field in a1 with defining polynomial x^3 - 7*x - 7
       To:   Number Field in a with defining polynomial 7/9*x^3 + 7/3*x^2 - 56*x + 123
       Defn: a1 |--> 28/225*a^2 + 77/75*a - 133/25, Ring morphism:
       From: Number Field in a with defining polynomial 7/9*x^3 + 7/3*x^2 - 56*x + 123
       To:   Number Field in a1 with defining polynomial x^3 - 7*x - 7
       Defn: a |--> -60/7*a1^2 + 15*a1 + 39)

 File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1829, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field_ideal.NumberFieldFractionalIdeal.factor
Failed example:
    fact = F.factor(2); fact
Expected:
    (Fractional ideal (2*a^2 + 1))^2 * (Fractional ideal (-2*a^2))
Got:
    (Fractional ideal (-2*a^2 - 1))^2 * (Fractional ideal (2*a^2))

 File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 2420, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field_ideal.NumberFieldFractionalIdeal.idealcoprime
Failed example:
    lam = A.idealcoprime(B); lam
Expected:
    -1/6*a + 1/6
Got:
    1/6*a - 1/6

 File "src/sage/rings/number_field/unit_group.py", line 281, in sage.rings.number_field.unit_group.UnitGroup.__init__
Failed example:
    UnitGroup(K, S=tuple(K.primes_above(7)))
Expected:
    S-unit group with structure C2 x Z x Z x Z of Number Field in a with defining polynomial 7/9*x^3 + 7/3*x^2 - 56*x + 123 with S = (Fractional ideal (7/225*a^2 - 7/75*a - 42/25),)
Got:
    S-unit group with structure C2 x Z x Z x Z of Number Field in a with defining polynomial 7/9*x^3 + 7/3*x^2 - 56*x + 123 with S = (Fractional ideal (28/225*a^2 + 77/75*a - 133/25),)

File "src/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_quotient_ring.py", line 1284, in sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_quotient_ring.PolynomialQuotientRing_generic.S_class_group
Failed example:
    S.S_class_group([])
Expected:
    [((1/4*xbar^2 + 31/4,
       (-1/8*a + 1/8)*xbar^2 - 31/8*a + 31/8,
       1/16*xbar^3 + 1/16*xbar^2 + 31/16*xbar + 31/16,
       -1/16*a*xbar^3 + (1/16*a + 1/8)*xbar^2 - 31/16*a*xbar + 31/16*a + 31/8),
      6),
      ((-1/4*xbar^2 - 23/4,
       (1/8*a - 1/8)*xbar^2 + 23/8*a - 23/8,
       -1/16*xbar^3 - 1/16*xbar^2 - 23/16*xbar - 23/16,
       1/16*a*xbar^3 + (-1/16*a - 1/8)*xbar^2 + 23/16*a*xbar - 23/16*a - 23/8),
      6),
     ((-5/4*xbar^2 - 115/4,
       1/4*a*xbar^2 + 23/4*a,
       -1/16*xbar^3 - 7/16*xbar^2 - 23/16*xbar - 161/16,
       1/16*a*xbar^3 - 1/16*a*xbar^2 + 23/16*a*xbar - 23/16*a),
      2)]
Got:
     [((1/4*xbar^2 + 31/4,
       (-1/8*a + 1/8)*xbar^2 - 31/8*a + 31/8,
       1/16*xbar^3 + 1/16*xbar^2 + 31/16*xbar + 31/16,
       -1/16*a*xbar^3 + (1/16*a + 1/8)*xbar^2 - 31/16*a*xbar + 31/16*a + 31/8),
      6),
     ((-1/4*xbar^2 - 23/4,
       (1/8*a - 1/8)*xbar^2 + 23/8*a - 23/8,
       -1/16*xbar^3 - 1/16*xbar^2 - 23/16*xbar - 23/16,
       1/16*a*xbar^3 + (-1/16*a - 1/8)*xbar^2 + 23/16*a*xbar - 23/16*a - 23/8),
      6),
     ((-5/4*xbar^2 - 115/4,
       (1/8*a - 5/8)*xbar^2 + 23/8*a - 115/8,
       -1/16*xbar^3 - 17/16*xbar^2 - 23/16*xbar - 391/16,
       1/16*a*xbar^3 + (-1/16*a - 5/8)*xbar^2 + 23/16*a*xbar - 23/16*a - 115/8),
      2)]

File "src/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_quotient_ring.py", line 1416, in sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_quotient_ring.PolynomialQuotientRing_generic.class_group
Failed example:
    S.class_group()
Expected:
    [((1/4*xbar^2 + 31/4,
       (-1/8*a + 1/8)*xbar^2 - 31/8*a + 31/8,
       1/16*xbar^3 + 1/16*xbar^2 + 31/16*xbar + 31/16,
       -1/16*a*xbar^3 + (1/16*a + 1/8)*xbar^2 - 31/16*a*xbar + 31/16*a + 31/8),
      6),
     ((-1/4*xbar^2 - 23/4,
       (1/8*a - 1/8)*xbar^2 + 23/8*a - 23/8,
       -1/16*xbar^3 - 1/16*xbar^2 - 23/16*xbar - 23/16,
       1/16*a*xbar^3 + (-1/16*a - 1/8)*xbar^2 + 23/16*a*xbar - 23/16*a - 23/8),
      6),
     ((-5/4*xbar^2 - 115/4,
       1/4*a*xbar^2 + 23/4*a,
       -1/16*xbar^3 - 7/16*xbar^2 - 23/16*xbar - 161/16,
       1/16*a*xbar^3 - 1/16*a*xbar^2 + 23/16*a*xbar - 23/16*a),
      2)]
Got:
    [((1/4*xbar^2 + 31/4,
       (-1/8*a + 1/8)*xbar^2 - 31/8*a + 31/8,
       1/16*xbar^3 + 1/16*xbar^2 + 31/16*xbar + 31/16,
       -1/16*a*xbar^3 + (1/16*a + 1/8)*xbar^2 - 31/16*a*xbar + 31/16*a + 31/8),
      6),
     ((-1/4*xbar^2 - 23/4,
       (1/8*a - 1/8)*xbar^2 + 23/8*a - 23/8,
       -1/16*xbar^3 - 1/16*xbar^2 - 23/16*xbar - 23/16,
       1/16*a*xbar^3 + (-1/16*a - 1/8)*xbar^2 + 23/16*a*xbar - 23/16*a - 23/8),
      6),
     ((-5/4*xbar^2 - 115/4,
       (1/8*a - 5/8)*xbar^2 + 23/8*a - 115/8,
       -1/16*xbar^3 - 17/16*xbar^2 - 23/16*xbar - 391/16,
       1/16*a*xbar^3 + (-1/16*a - 5/8)*xbar^2 + 23/16*a*xbar - 23/16*a - 115/8),
      2)]

There are some other tests that seem PARI related, e.g.

File "src/sage/lfunctions/dokchitser.py", line 112, in sage.lfunctions.dokchitser.Dokchitser
Failed example:
    L.check_functional_equation()
Expected:
    6.04442711160669e-18                            
Got:
    6.11218974738703e-18

and

 File "src/sage/lfunctions/dokchitser.py", line 671, in sage.lfunctions.dokchitser.Dokchitser.check_functional_equation
Failed example:
    L.check_functional_equation()
Expected:
    -2.71050543121376e-20                        
Got:
    -1.35525271560688e-20

File "src/sage/lfunctions/pari.py", line 425, in sage.lfunctions.pari.LFunction
Failed example:
    L.check_functional_equation()
Expected:
    1.08420217248550e-19
Got:
    4.33680868994202e-19

Those tests could be repaired by just checking that the numerical noise is reasonable.

kliem · 2020-04-02T09:21:43Z

comment:3

I have upgraded to pari 2.11.3 and that reproduces the problems. So I confirm that this is the problem.

kliem · 2020-04-02T14:42:53Z

comment:4

Something seems to be messed up when installing PARI 2.11.3

sage: y = var('y')
sage: pK = pari.bnfinit(y^3+3)
sage: pK.bnfisunit(pK.bnfunit()[0])
[1, Mod(1, 2)]~

But the expected output is [1, Mod(0, 2)].

kliem · 2020-04-02T14:42:53Z

Changed author from Jonathan Kliem to none

kliem · 2020-04-02T14:54:25Z

comment:5

Maybe cypari 2.1.1 just cannot deal with pari 2.11.3, but maybe there is also a bug in pari 2.11.3.

kliem · 2020-04-02T17:06:07Z

comment:6

Before I forget,

this also looks serious

File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 5357, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic.elements_of_norm
Failed example:
    K.elements_of_norm(7)
Expected:
    [7/225*a^2 - 7/75*a - 42/25]
Got:
    [28/225*a^2 + 77/75*a - 133/25]

I don't think this element has norm 7 in K.<a> = NumberField(7/9*x^3 + 7/3*x^2 - 56*x + 123).

antonio-rojas · 2020-04-02T20:46:06Z

comment:7

pari 2.11.3 is broken, see #29313. The test in the previous comment is ok though, both elements have norm 7.

kliem · 2020-04-03T05:32:39Z

comment:8

Ok, I'm stupid. I redifined a and than parsed 28/225*a^2 + 77/75*a - 133/25. This did of course produce nonsense.

So what do we do. Reject pari 2.11.3 from system until this is fixed?

Replying to @antonio-rojas:

pari 2.11.3 is broken, see #29313. The test in the previous comment is ok though, both elements have norm 7.

antonio-rojas · 2020-04-03T09:54:09Z

comment:9

Replying to @kliem:

So what do we do. Reject pari 2.11.3 from system until this is fixed?

Yes, IMO that's what we should do - unpatched 2.11.3 gives incorrect answers which is not acceptable.

orlitzky · 2020-04-03T10:58:39Z

comment:12

Devil's advocate: we shouldn't be in the business of detecting system versions down to the backported-commit-patch level. Distros should be in charge of not shipping broken software to their users, who probably don't want to be using a PARI that gives the wrong answer outside of Sage, either. If people hit this, they should complain to their distro to either backport the patch or mask the busted version.

mkoeppe · 2020-04-03T11:06:45Z

comment:13

spkg-configure is exactly this business, by definition

But it shouldn't detect versions. It should detect absence of known bugs.

kliem · 2020-04-03T15:06:12Z

comment:14

As far as I understand, the patch in the branch #29313 also includes a small doctest.

Can we include this in spkg-configure?

This is probably wrong syntax, but something like this might work:

    AC_MSG_CHECKING([does pari have known bug? ])
    bug_check=`echo "bnf = bnfinit(y^4-y-1); bnfisunit(bnf,-y^3+2*y^2-1)" | $GP -qf 2>> config.log`
    expected="[0, 2, Mod(0, 2)]~"
    if test x$bug_check=x$expected; then
        AC_MSG_RESULT([no])
    else
        AC_MSG_RESULT([yes; cannot use system pari/GP with known bug])
        AC_MSG_NOTICE([Patch/upgrade yoour package and reconfigure.])
        AC_MSG_NOTICE([Otherwise Sage will build its own pari/GP.])
        sage_spkg_install_pari=yes
    fi

kliem · 2020-04-03T15:09:47Z

comment:15

On the broken pari the output of this is [0, 2, Mod(1, 2)]~. On the working pari the output is as above.

mkoeppe · 2020-04-03T15:33:11Z

comment:16

yes, that's the right way to fix it. Careful with the brackets - they are m4 quoting characters

kliem · 2020-04-03T15:41:26Z

comment:17

Can you are someone put it in the right place? I can try to, but I'm really guessing here.

mkoeppe · 2020-04-03T15:42:08Z

comment:18

OK, will do

mkoeppe · 2020-04-03T17:10:30Z

Branch: u/mkoeppe/fix_failing_doctests_because_of_representation_depending_on_pari_version

mkoeppe · 2020-04-03T17:12:47Z

New commits:

`f6341db`	`build/pkgs/pari/spkg-configure.m4: Add test for bnfisunit bug`
`c4a0a22`	`build/pkgs/pari/spkg-configure.m4: Re-enable main PARI test (lost in SAGE_SPKG_CONFIGURE macro change); remove duplicate AC_MSG`

mkoeppe · 2020-04-03T17:12:47Z

Commit: c4a0a22

mkoeppe · 2020-04-03T17:12:47Z

Author: Jonathan Kliem, Matthias Koeppe

kliem · 2020-04-03T17:17:54Z

comment:24

@mkoeppe: Thanks. Should I start a github workflow? Are you already doing it?

mkoeppe · 2020-04-03T17:25:35Z

comment:25

Please do. #29417 has the latest version

antonio-rojas · 2020-04-03T17:38:04Z

comment:26

What about the original aim of this ticket (make tests pass regardless of the system pari version)? When using a patched 2.11.3 you'd still get many doctest failures (but correct nevertheless)

mkoeppe · 2020-04-03T17:40:54Z

comment:27

Should probably be taken care of in the same ticket

kliem · 2020-04-03T17:48:42Z

comment:28

I would wait and see.

I'm still willing to change the doctests such that both pari versions work, but I guess on a new ticket once this problem occurs.

(I also wasn't sure how many of those things would disappear once this is patched, e.g. the +/- failures.)

antonio-rojas · 2020-04-03T17:53:52Z

comment:29

You can see the exact failures in the patch for #29313 (but that patch only changes them to the 2.11.3 answer, so they would fail with <2.11.3)

kliem · 2020-04-04T05:41:42Z

comment:30

Ok, seems to work

https://github.com/kliem/sage-test-27122/actions

Specifically for debian bulleye standard it detects the bug and doesn't use system pari (and those failures are gone).
For debian buster it checks for the bug and detects that the system pari is fine to use.

kliem · 2020-04-04T13:04:29Z

Reviewer: Jonathan Kliem

mkoeppe · 2020-04-04T14:01:34Z

Changed reviewer from Jonathan Kliem to Matthias Koeppe, Jonathan Kliem

vbraun · 2020-04-09T22:45:05Z

Changed branch from u/mkoeppe/fix_failing_doctests_because_of_representation_depending_on_pari_version to c4a0a22

dimpase · 2020-04-23T10:27:26Z

Changed commit from c4a0a22 to none

dimpase · 2020-04-23T10:27:26Z

comment:34

it is a buggy test

configure:17249: checking whether hyperellcharpoly bug is fixed
  ***   too many arguments: ...lcharpoly(x^10+x^9+x^8+x,0*Mod(1,3))
  ***                                                   ^-----------
configure:17257: result: no; cannot use system pari/GP with known bug

Don't mix up AS_IF and shell if :-(

See #29554 for a fix

kliem added this to the sage-9.1 milestone Apr 1, 2020

kliem added c: number fields labels Apr 1, 2020

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

kliem added the s: needs info label Apr 2, 2020

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

mkoeppe added p: critical / 2 and removed p: major / 3 labels Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe changed the title ~~Fix failing doctests because of representation depending on PARI version~~ Reject broken system PARI 2.11.3 Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe added s: needs review and removed s: needs info labels Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe changed the title ~~Reject broken system PARI 2.11.3~~ Reject broken system PARI 2.11.3 and re-enable PARI library test in spkg-configure Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe added s: positive review and removed s: needs review labels Apr 4, 2020

vbraun removed the s: positive review label Apr 9, 2020

vbraun closed this as completed in f3631bb Apr 9, 2020

This was referenced Jun 22, 2020

Modify doctest such that they work with pari >= 2.11.3 and pari < 2.11.3 #29472

Closed

Reject old system pari with bug in hyperellcharpoly #29494

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Reject broken system PARI 2.11.3 and re-enable PARI library test in spkg-configure #29445

Reject broken system PARI 2.11.3 and re-enable PARI library test in spkg-configure #29445

kliem commented Apr 1, 2020

kliem commented Apr 1, 2020

This comment has been minimized.

kliem commented Apr 2, 2020

kliem commented Apr 2, 2020

kliem commented Apr 2, 2020

This comment has been minimized.

kliem commented Apr 2, 2020

kliem commented Apr 2, 2020

antonio-rojas commented Apr 2, 2020

kliem commented Apr 3, 2020

antonio-rojas commented Apr 3, 2020

orlitzky commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

kliem commented Apr 3, 2020

kliem commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

kliem commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

kliem commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

antonio-rojas commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

kliem commented Apr 3, 2020

antonio-rojas commented Apr 3, 2020

kliem commented Apr 4, 2020

kliem commented Apr 4, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 4, 2020

vbraun commented Apr 9, 2020

dimpase commented Apr 23, 2020

dimpase commented Apr 23, 2020

Reject broken system PARI 2.11.3 and re-enable PARI library test in spkg-configure #29445

Reject broken system PARI 2.11.3 and re-enable PARI library test in spkg-configure #29445

Comments

kliem commented Apr 1, 2020

kliem commented Apr 1, 2020

This comment has been minimized.

kliem commented Apr 2, 2020

kliem commented Apr 2, 2020

kliem commented Apr 2, 2020

This comment has been minimized.

kliem commented Apr 2, 2020

kliem commented Apr 2, 2020

antonio-rojas commented Apr 2, 2020

kliem commented Apr 3, 2020

antonio-rojas commented Apr 3, 2020

orlitzky commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

kliem commented Apr 3, 2020

kliem commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

kliem commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

kliem commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

antonio-rojas commented Apr 3, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 3, 2020

kliem commented Apr 3, 2020

antonio-rojas commented Apr 3, 2020

kliem commented Apr 4, 2020

kliem commented Apr 4, 2020

mkoeppe commented Apr 4, 2020

vbraun commented Apr 9, 2020

dimpase commented Apr 23, 2020

dimpase commented Apr 23, 2020