Implement symmetry classes of plane partitions

[tscrim]

Implement symmetric classes on plane partitions #28244

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

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

Coverage data is based on head (9ff10da) compared to base (84eebf0).
Patch coverage: 96.25% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop   #35037    +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage    88.59%   88.59%            
=========================================
  Files         2140     2140            
  Lines       396961   397657   +696     
=========================================
+ Hits        351671   352290   +619     
- Misses       45290    45367    +77     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/sage/schemes/toric/sheaf/klyachko.py	92.43% <ø> (ø)
src/sage/combinat/plane_partition.py	96.86% <96.25%> (-0.67%)	⬇️
...e/combinat/cluster_algebra_quiver/mutation_type.py	47.50% <0.00%> (-2.74%)	⬇️
src/sage/groups/additive_abelian/qmodnz.py	91.48% <0.00%> (-2.13%)	⬇️
src/sage/doctest/forker.py	80.24% <0.00%> (-1.48%)	⬇️
src/sage/homology/matrix_utils.py	87.15% <0.00%> (-0.92%)	⬇️
src/sage/groups/generic.py	88.34% <0.00%> (-0.68%)	⬇️
...sage/geometry/hyperbolic_space/hyperbolic_model.py	88.95% <0.00%> (-0.62%)	⬇️
src/sage/graphs/graph_plot.py	84.33% <0.00%> (-0.57%)	⬇️
... and 21 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.

[fchapoton]

the seems to be a problem with NewType somewhere, see the build & test

[tscrim]

the seems to be a problem with NewType somewhere, see the build & test

Are we sure that is a real error? It is something with pyright that I don't really know. I do not know what to even test to try and reproduce locally.

[fchapoton]

The second argument of NewType must be a class, not a string. Either remove all annotations with PP (namely --> PP), or try using PP = NewType('PP', PlanePartition). Not sure what's best and what will work.

[tscrim]

Okay, done. Let's try this again.

[github-actions]

Documentation preview for this PR is ready! 🎉
Built with commit: 9ff10da

[tscrim]

All tests now pass. Thanks @fchapoton

[tscrim]

@kevindilks @jessicapalencia @sagetrac-jangsookim Could one of you finish the review for this? It is just checking my last commits.

[fchapoton]

one import of ZZ zhould be changed

[tscrim]

@fchapoton Thank you. I wasn't aware it was easy to push review changes like that. (In fact, it is somewhat worrisome the default allows such pushes...) Is there anything else that needs to be done?

[fchapoton]

I guess I may have been given some super-powers. Maybe I should have not done that, but it was such a simple change..

I think this is ready.

[tscrim]

I would be a bit surprised about that since you pushed to the branch on my fork. It might be a normal part of working on GH (I don't recall seeing anything about this on the transition/workflow guide).

Then are you approving the PR? (I can't do this since it is coming from my fork.)

[fchapoton]

when creating a pull request, there is a box to tick where you can allow changes on your own fork by the managers of the main repo.

Yes, let me approve the thing here. I would rather squash all these commits, but it may complicated, no idea about what would happen with the new process..

[fchapoton]

good to go, in my opinion

[tscrim]

Ah, I see. It is a bit annoying that it is somewhat limited as well. There are definitely times I wish I could just push a change rather than do the inline comments (and I really do not want to fragment stuff with a separate PR). Well...it it what it is.

Thank you.

Squashing them might be complicated because of the different versions that this has been built with. It probably would be good, but I think something of squashing-all-commits-per-PR should be decided on sage-devel since it can have impacts on bisections and inspecting the change history. (Although this case might still benefit from it.) Anyways, perhaps for another time.