julia 1.0 installation tests - nix-pkgs - ubuntu - julia

My laptop:
Linux g-TP 4.13.0-26-generic #29~16.04.2-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jan 9 22:00:44
UTC 2018 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
I installed julia via nix-env and got the following test result
Test Summary: | Pass Broken Total
Overall | 37420635 327815 37748450
SUCCESS
What can / should I do for resolving the 327815 broken tests?

A test that is marked as broken (with #test_broke) does not lead to a test failure, all tests passed as indicated by the SUCCESS in the output.
From the docs of #test_broken:
help?> #test_broken
#test_broken ex
Indicates a test that should pass but currently consistently fails.
Tests that the expression ex evaluates to false or causes an exception.
Returns a Broken Result if it does, or an Error Result if the expression evaluates to true.
Example:
julia> using Test
julia> #testset begin
#test 1 == 1 # results in a Pass
#test 1 == 2 # results in a Fail
#test_broken 1 == 2 # results in a Broken
end
Test Summary: | Pass Fail Broken Total
test set | 1 1 1 3
ERROR: Some tests did not pass: 1 passed, 1 failed, 0 errored, 1 broken.

Related

Lua: recursive function builts wrong table - pil4

while working on the exercise 2.2 of "programming in Lua 4" I do have to create a function to built all permutations of the numbers 1-8. I decided to use Heaps algorithm und made the following script. I´m testing with numbers 1-3.
In the function I store the permutations as tables {1,2,3} {2,1,3} and so on into local "a" and add them to global "perm". But something runs wrong and at the end of the recursions I get the same permutation on all slots. I can´t figure it out. Please help.
function generateperm (k,a)
if k == 1 then
perm[#perm + 1] = a -- adds recent permutation to table
io.write(table.unpack(a)) -- debug print. it shows last added one
io.write("\n") -- so I can see the algorithm works fine
else
for i=1,k do
generateperm(k-1,a)
if k % 2 == 0 then -- builts a permutation
a[i],a[k] = a[k],a[i]
else
a[1],a[k] = a[k],a[1]
end
end
end
end
--
perm = {}
generateperm(3,{1,2,3}) -- start
--
for k,v in ipairs (perm) do -- prints all stored permutations
for k,v in ipairs(perm[k]) do -- but it´s 6 times {1,2,3}
io.write(v)
end
io.write("\n")
end
debug print:
123
213
312
132
231
321
123
123
123
123
123
123

Pyomo constraint issue: not returning constrained result

I setup a constraint that does not constraint the solver in pyomo.
The constraint is the following:
def revenue_positive(model,t):
for t in model.T:
return (model.D[t] * model.P[t]) >= 0
model.positive_revenue = Constraint(model.T, rule=revenue_positive)
while the model parameters are:
model = ConcreteModel()
model.T = Set(doc='quarter of year', initialize=df.index.tolist(), ordered=True)
model.P = Param(model.T, initialize=df['price'].to_dict(), within=Any, doc='Price for each quarter')
model.C = Var(model.T, domain=NonNegativeReals)
model.D = Var(model.T, domain=NonNegativeReals)
income = sum(df.loc[t, 'price'] * model.D[t] for t in model.T)
expenses = sum(df.loc[t, 'price'] * model.C[t] for t in model.T)
profit = income - expenses
model.objective = Objective(expr=profit, sense=maximize)
# Solve the model
solver = SolverFactory('cbc')
solver.solve(model)
df dataframe is:
df time_stamp price Status imbalance Difference Situation ... week month hour_of_day day_of_week day_of_year yearly_quarter
quarter ...
0 2021-01-01 00:00:00 64.84 Final 16 -3 Deficit ... 00 1 0 4 1 1
1 2021-01-01 00:15:00 13.96 Final 38 2 Surplus ... 00 1 0 4 1 1
2 2021-01-01 00:30:00 12.40 Final 46 1 Surplus ... 00 1 0 4 1 1
3 2021-01-01 00:45:00 7.70 Final 65 14 Surplus ... 00 1 0 4 1 1
4 2021-01-01 01:00:00 64.25 Final 3 -9 Deficit ... 00 1 1 4 1 1
The objective is to constraint the solver not to accept a negative revenue. As such it does not work as the solver passes 6 negative revenue values through. Looking at the indices with negative revenue, it appears the system chooses to sell at a negative price to buy later at a price even "more" negative, so from an optimization standpoint, it is ok. I would like to check the difference in results if we prohibit the solver to do that. Any input is welcome as after many searches on the web, still not the right way to write it correctly.
I did a pprint() of the constraint that returned:
positive_revenue : Size=35040, Index=T, Active=True
UPDATE following new constraint code:
def revenue_positive(model,t):
return model.D[t] * model.P[t] >= 0
model.positive_revenue = Constraint(model.T, rule=revenue_positive)
Return the following error:
ERROR: Rule failed when generating expression for constraint positive_revenue
with index 283: ValueError: Invalid constraint expression. The constraint
expression resolved to a trivial Boolean (True) instead of a Pyomo object.
Please modify your rule to return Constraint.Feasible instead of True.
Error thrown for Constraint 'positive_revenue[283]'
ERROR: Constructing component 'positive_revenue' from data=None failed:
ValueError: Invalid constraint expression. The constraint expression
resolved to a trivial Boolean (True) instead of a Pyomo object. Please
modify your rule to return Constraint.Feasible instead of True.
Error thrown for Constraint 'positive_revenue[283]'
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/olivier/Desktop/Elia - BESS/run_imbalance.py", line 25, in <module>
results_df = optimize_year(df)
File "/home/olivier/Desktop/Elia - BESS/battery_model_imbalance.py", line 122, in optimize_year
model.positive_revenue = Constraint(model.T, rule=revenue_positive)
File "/home/olivier/anaconda3/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pyomo/core/base/block.py", line 542, in __setattr__
self.add_component(name, val)
File "/home/olivier/anaconda3/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pyomo/core/base/block.py", line 1087, in add_component
val.construct(data)
File "/home/olivier/anaconda3/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pyomo/core/base/constraint.py", line 781, in construct
self._setitem_when_not_present(
File "/home/olivier/anaconda3/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pyomo/core/base/indexed_component.py", line 778, in _setitem_when_not_present
obj.set_value(value)
File "/home/olivier/anaconda3/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pyomo/core/base/constraint.py", line 506, in set_value
raise ValueError(
ValueError: Invalid constraint expression. The constraint expression resolved to a trivial Boolean (True) instead of a Pyomo object. Please modify your rule to return Constraint.Feasible instead of True.
Error thrown for Constraint 'positive_revenue[283]'
So there are 2 issues w/ your constraint. It isn't clear if one is a cut & paste issue or not.
The function call to make the constraint appears to be indented and inside of your function after the return statement, making it unreachable code. Could be just the spacing in your post.
You are incorrectly adding a loop inside of your function. You are passing in the parameter t as a function argument and then you are blowing it away with the for loop, which only executes for the first value of t in T then hits the return statement. Remove the loop. When you use the rule= structure in pyomo it will call the rule for each instance of the set that you are using in the Constraint(xx, rule=) structure.
So I think you should have:
def revenue_positive(model, t):
return model.D[t] * model.P[t] >= 0
model.positive_revenue = Constraint(model.T, rule=revenue_positive)
Updated re: the error you added.
The error cites the 283rd index. My bet is that price[283] is zero, so you are multiplying by a zero and killing your variable.
You could add a check within the function that checks if the price is zero, and in that case, just return pyo.Constraint.Feasible, which is the trivial return that doesn't influence the model (or crash)

How to resolve error " Hunk #2 FAILED at 456. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED"

I am trying to run the following command in ubuntu terminal
patch -p0 -i adjustmentFile.patch
That is giving the following error
patching file ./src/helpStructures/CastaliaModule.cc
patching file ./src/node/communication/mac/tunableMac/TunableMAC.cc
Hunk #2 FAILED at 456.
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file ./src/node/communication/mac/tunableMac/TunableMAC.cc.rej
I tried almost all the ways suggested in the link Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. What's that mean?. However, nothing worked.
Here is my version detail
VIM - Vi IMproved 8.0 (2016 Sep 12, compiled Jun 06 2019 17:31:41)
Included patches: 1-1453
The patch file:
diff -r -u ./src/helpStructures/CastaliaModule.cc ./src/helpStructures/CastaliaModule.cc
--- ./src/helpStructures/CastaliaModule.cc 2010-12-09 09:56:47.000000000 -0300
+++ ./src/helpStructures/CastaliaModule.cc 2011-12-20 00:16:39.944320051 -0300
## -180,6 +180,8 ##
classPointers.resourceManager = getParentModule()->getParentModule()->getSubmodule("ResourceManager");
else if (name.compare("SensorManager") == 0)
classPointers.resourceManager = getParentModule()->getSubmodule("ResourceManager");
+ else if (name.compare("Routing") == 0)
+ classPointers.resourceManager = getParentModule()->getParentModule()->getSubmodule("ResourceManager");
else
opp_error("%s module has no rights to call drawPower() function", getFullPath().c_str());
if (!classPointers.resourceManager)
Only in ./src/helpStructures: CastaliaModule.cc~
diff -r -u ./src/node/communication/mac/tunableMac/TunableMAC.cc ./src/node/communication/mac/tunableMac/TunableMAC.cc
--- ./src/node/communication/mac/tunableMac/TunableMAC.cc 2011-03-30 02:14:34.000000000 -0300
+++ ./src/node/communication/mac/tunableMac/TunableMAC.cc 2011-12-19 23:57:43.894686687 -0300
## -405,6 +405,8 ##
void TunableMAC::fromRadioLayer(cPacket * pkt, double rssi, double lqi)
{
TunableMacPacket *macFrame = dynamic_cast <TunableMacPacket*>(pkt);
+ macFrame->getMacRadioInfoExchange().RSSI = rssi;
+ macFrame->getMacRadioInfoExchange().LQI = lqi;
if (macFrame == NULL){
collectOutput("TunableMAC packet breakdown", "filtered, other MAC");
return;
## -454,7 +456,8 ##
}
case DATA_FRAME:{
- toNetworkLayer(macFrame->decapsulate());
+ cPacket *netPkt = decapsulatePacket(macFrame);
+ toNetworkLayer(netPkt);
collectOutput("TunableMAC packet breakdown", "received data pkts");
if (macState == MAC_STATE_RX) {
cancelTimer(ATTEMPT_TX);
Only in ./src/node/communication/mac/tunableMac: TunableMAC.cc~
Patching takes some changes made to a file X, and applies them to a different instance of file X. That is, suppose you start with generation 1 of file X; you make changes to get generation 2-a, and someone else starts with generation 1 to make generation 2-b. Now you want to take his edits that created his generation 2-b, and apply them to your generation 2-a.
If 'his' changes clash with 'your' changes, they cannot be automatically patched.
You'll need to look at the changes being made in hunk 2.
- toNetworkLayer(macFrame->decapsulate());
+ cPacket *netPkt = decapsulatePacket(macFrame);
+ toNetworkLayer(netPkt);
and figure out what you want the result to look like. Someone needs to know what the result is supposed to be. You can't resolve conflicts without knowledge of intent.

Will a nest loop help in parsing results

I am trying to pull information from two different dictionaries. (excuse me because I am literally hacking to understand.)
I have a for loop that gives me the vmname. I have another for loop that gives me the other information like 'replicationid'.
I could be doing a very huge assumption here but hey ill start there. what I want to do it to integrate for loop 1 and for loop 2. as so the results are like this, is it even possible?
initial output of for loop1 which I can get:
vma
vmb
vmc
initial output of for loop2 which I can get:
replication job 1
replication job 2
replication job 3
desired results is:
vma
replication job 1
vmb
replication job 2
vmc
replication job 3
def get_replication_job_status():
sms = boto3.client('sms')
resp = sms.get_replication_jobs()
#print(resp)
things = [(cl['replicationJobId'], cl['serverId']) for cl in
resp['replicationJobList']]
thangs = [cl['vmServer'] for cl in resp['replicationJobList']]
for i in thangs:
print()
print("this is vm " + (i['vmName']))
print("this is the vm location " + (i['vmPath']))
print("this is the vm address, " +(str(i['vmServerAddress'])))
for j in things:
print("The Replication ID is : " +(str(j[0])))
again I want:
vma
replication job 1
vmb
replication job 2
vmc
replication job 3
im am getting:
vma
replication job 1
replication job 2
replication job 3
vmb
replication job 1
replication job 2
replication job 3
..
..
..
If you are sure that your lists both have the same length, then what you need is python built-in zip function:
for thing, thang in zip(things, thangs):
print()
print(thing)
print(thang)
But if one of the lists is longer then another then zip will crop both lists to have the same length as the shortest, for example:
>>> for i, j in zip(range(3), range(5)):
... print(i, j)
...
(0, 0)
(1, 1)
(2, 2)
UPD:
You can also unpack your tuples right in for loop definition, so each item (they are 2-tuples) in things list gets saved to two variables:
for (replicationJobId, serverId), thang in zip(things, thangs):
print()
print(replicationJobId)
print(serverId)
print(thang)
UPD 2:
Why do you split resp into to two lists?
def get_replication_job_status():
sms = boto3.client('sms')
resp = sms.get_replication_jobs()
#print(resp)
for replication_job in resp['replicationJobList']:
vm_server = replication_job['vmServer']
print()
print("this is vm:", vm_server['vmName'])
print("this is the vm location:", vm_server['vmPath'])
print("this is the vm address:", vm_server['vmServerAddress'])
print("The Replication ID is :", replication_job['replicationJobId'])

Robot framework how to set own name for each test case in data driven tests for report output

Could you please help me how to set own name for each test case into Data Driven to make report more readable.
REAL REPORT EXAMPLE:
Status: FAIL (critical)
Message: Several failures occurred:
1) ******************************
FAIL: Wrong value received. Expected: 0 . Actual: 3
2) ******************************
FAIL: Wrong value received. Expected: 0 . Actual: 3
3) ******************************
FAIL: Wrong value received. Expected: 0 . Actual: 3
But it is not clear from the output about details. And I would like to have some details instead of ***************,
THAT I NEED :
Status: FAIL (critical)
Message: Several failures occurred:
1) if param is empty
FAIL: Wrong value received. Expected: 0 . Actual: 3
2) if param is out of range
FAIL: Wrong value received. Expected: 0 . Actual: 3
3) if param is something more
FAIL: Wrong value received. Expected: 0 . Actual: 3
I have these detail as ${comment} for each table line into data driven. Could you please help me how to assign it for each test case inside data driven to have more understandable report.
DATA DRIVEN TEST EXAMPLE
st_ddt_test_example
[Template] st_ddt_test_example_keyword
# comment # # value setup # # value expected #
if param is empty 0 0
if param is out of range 100 0
if param is something more -8 0
Your keyword controls the error that is displayed, so it just needs to include the name as part of the error message.
Here is an example:
*** Keywords ***
Example
[Arguments] ${comment} ${1} ${2}
should be equal ${1} ${2}
... ${comment}: '${1}' != '${2}'
... False
*** Test Cases ***
Test 1
[Template] example
Test 1.0 a b
Test 1.1 b c
Test 1.2 c d
When run, the test yields the following results:
Test 1 | FAIL |
Several failures occurred:
1) Test 1.0: 'a' != 'b'
2) Test 1.1: 'b' != 'c'
3) Test 1.2: 'c' != 'd'

Resources