Update test output for compatibility with pluralisation changes in GAP #865
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
wilfwilson
added
minor
wilfwilson
force-pushed
the
update-pluralization
branch
2 times, most recently
from
dfa2aff to
a7500f0
Compare
wilfwilson
force-pushed
the
update-pluralization
branch
from
a7500f0 to
9f8d2d7
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I've made a GAP pull request at gap-system/gap#4343 which makes a few pluralisation-related changes. The change most relevant to this issue is that it changes “1 arguments” to “1 argument” in
no method founderrors. I'm expecting this will be merged into GAP master soon, and this PR assumes that it'll make its way into GAP 4.16.I think the only ways to accommodate this change in our test files would either be to stop testing for
no method founderrors (which I think would be a reasonable approach; why test for the non-existence of a method?), or to use the#@ifsyntax and provide two versions of test output, using the appropriate pluralisation for the GAP version. That's what this pull request does.Unfortunately, the
#@ifsyntax was only introduced in GAP 4.11, so merging this PR will also require dropping support for GAP 4.10; see #866.There'll be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem with these pull requests; in particular, the tests here against the GAP master branch will fail until gap-system/gap#4343 is merged.
However, to mitigate this, I've (temporarily) added a CI job to this pull request that tests against the
update-pluralizationbranch of my GAP work, which is the one responsible for gap-system/gap#4343. Therefore these jobs reflect how the GAPmasterjobs will behave once gap-system/gap#4343 is merged, and therefore these new jobs should pass!The Semigroups and smallsemi packages also need such an update; I'll make pull requests for all three, and try and merge all those of those, plus gap-system/gap#4343, pretty much simultaneously, so that the period of time during which the CI fails is minimised.