Performance benchmarking #336
Conversation
…new member function to provide this capability
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #336 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 79.61% 81.77% +2.15%
==========================================
Files 16 16
Lines 1982 2052 +70
Branches 462 440 -22
==========================================
+ Hits 1578 1678 +100
+ Misses 273 238 -35
- Partials 131 136 +5
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
|
Hi @NicolasRouquette, the code quality checks are passing, which is great. The code coverage decreased as a result of the new functionality for performance. Would you be able to write a couple of tests to exercise the new functionality? In addition to |
| A list of terms not containing any variables in `vars_to_elim` | ||
| and which, in the context provided, imply the terms contained in the | ||
| calling termlist. | ||
| A tuple consisting of: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to check if mkdocs will pick this docstring correctly. Newlines need additional indentation for them to show up as part of the same structure. Since you have "-", I am not sure what will happen.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How do you generate the doc?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The docs are generated from the pacti-docs repo.
We can look at the documentation locally via the command make docs-serve
|
Yes, I'll add some additional tests to improve the coverage. |
|
I managed to get the code coverage > 80%. For the remaining, we must create a contrived PolyhedralTermList and call some methods like Also, can you suggest pathological inequalities that could trip the untested branches in the various tactics? |
The API is backwards compatible but offers new APIs for compose and quotient that allow specifying the list of tactics to be used and provide a tuple result, the resulting contract, and the list of tactic usage information.