-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
Tests for shapes of topological data #64
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
Open
borisdevos
wants to merge
13
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
bd/shapes
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
13 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
9f2b16f
test suites for shapes and fusion ring stuff
borisdevos e93ca0c
Merge branch 'main' into bd/shapes
borisdevos 8ce6c46
Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/QuantumKitHub/TensorKitSect…
borisdevos e6d5bda
separate eltype tests from basic properties
borisdevos 278d4b5
use `can_fuse` instead of checking intersect
borisdevos 90a1849
update data storage type test
borisdevos 9dab622
format
borisdevos b931cd1
extra braiding check
borisdevos d80d32a
test data types differently
borisdevos 06b47fc
check invalid fusion channels separately from topological data shapes
borisdevos 0c1319b
generalise to multiplicity-free
borisdevos 11e01bf
don't separate invalid fusion channels check from shapes check
borisdevos 6e2b302
Merge branch 'main' into bd/shapes
borisdevos File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We may also consider adding tests for invalid fusion channels, as I think this would be easier to have uncaught errors in
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is tied together to a test suite that works for multifusion and fusion categories together, which remains difficult to realise 🫠 but I can differ between
SimpleUnitandGenericUnitfor this specific test easily if wantedThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since that remains difficult, how about we still do that here? For example, we could already capture the non-
UniqueFusioncase by looping over all values, not only theintersect, which would still be "valid" fusion channels in the sense that everything is allowed to fuse according to the multifusion rulesThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I can deal with this PR better once #71 merges
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Bump for this again, since the sizes are really only ever wrong in these cases