Skip to content

Add rdiv!, ldiv! methods and tests #19

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.

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 21, 2025

Conversation

dmbates
Copy link
Contributor

@dmbates dmbates commented Mar 20, 2025

  • add LinearAlgebra.rdiv! method for TriangularRFP [rdiv! for TriangularRFP #18]
  • change ldiv! to LinearAlgebra.ldiv!
  • add tests for ldiv! and rdiv!

Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 20, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.39%. Comparing base (5cadbff) to head (cb23c40).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #19      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.28%   97.39%   +0.11%     
==========================================
  Files           6        5       -1     
  Lines         184      192       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits          179      187       +8     
  Misses          5        5              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@dmbates
Copy link
Contributor Author

dmbates commented Mar 20, 2025

Looks like I should add tests for ldiv! and rdiv! for with transposed A. I will do that. Any other changes?

@dmbates
Copy link
Contributor Author

dmbates commented Mar 21, 2025

@andreasnoack Could you review this PR please? I haven't bumped the version yet. Do you think these methods should be documented or is the fact that they exist and are documented for triangular matrices sufficient?

Copy link
Member

@andreasnoack andreasnoack left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's fine to rely on the existing docstrings as the interface is exactly the same. It is only the storage layout that is different and it is abstracted away.

@andreasnoack andreasnoack merged commit fb59bec into JuliaLinearAlgebra:main Mar 21, 2025
5 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants