Skip to content

fix usage of verbose with positional argument #35024

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 3, 2023
Merged

fix usage of verbose with positional argument #35024

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 3, 2023

Conversation

alexjbest
Copy link
Contributor

The second argument of verbose is a time, not the level, some calls were incorrectly using a positional argument in this case.

📚 Description

📝 Checklist

  • I have made sure that the title is self-explanatory and the description concisely explains the PR.
  • I have linked an issue or discussion.
  • I have created tests covering the changes.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.

⌛ Dependencies

@roed314
Copy link
Contributor

roed314 commented Feb 8, 2023

Lgtm. Feel free to set to positive review once tests pass.

fchapoton
fchapoton approved these changes Feb 8, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@fchapoton fchapoton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks good, thanks

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Base: 88.59% // Head: 88.59% // Increases project coverage by +0.00% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (cabd272) compared to base (104dde9).
Patch coverage: 87.50% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop   #35024   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    88.59%   88.59%           
========================================
  Files         2136     2136           
  Lines       396142   396142           
========================================
+ Hits        350948   350950    +2     
+ Misses       45194    45192    -2
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/gal_reps.py 82.19% <87.50%> (ø)
src/sage/interfaces/qsieve.py 71.30% <0.00%> (-2.61%) ⬇️
src/sage/rings/polynomial/pbori/parallel.py 59.82% <0.00%> (-1.79%) ⬇️
src/sage/combinat/combination.py 93.50% <0.00%> (-1.50%) ⬇️
src/sage/categories/weyl_groups.py 96.47% <0.00%> (-0.59%) ⬇️
src/sage/modular/arithgroup/congroup_gamma0.py 94.41% <0.00%> (-0.56%) ⬇️
src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/formal_group.py 93.51% <0.00%> (-0.55%) ⬇️
src/sage/graphs/generic_graph.py 89.12% <0.00%> (-0.42%) ⬇️
src/sage/modular/overconvergent/hecke_series.py 98.76% <0.00%> (-0.31%) ⬇️
src/sage/crypto/sboxes.py 96.17% <0.00%> (-0.28%) ⬇️
... and 18 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@vbraun vbraun merged commit 3585296 into sagemath:develop Mar 3, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@fchapoton fchapoton fchapoton approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
sage-10.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@alexjbest @roed314 @codecov-commenter @fchapoton @vbraun @mkoeppe