From be0c4ef122be9865a48036fd10f62f4d505c33d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Max Horn Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 15:53:29 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Don't use `inv` and `inv!` in ring conformance tests We can't expect general rings to support inv, not even for the ring's one element. These tests may be reactivated in a future version, e.g. if we add an `implements` trait. --- ext/TestExt/Rings-conformance-tests.jl | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/ext/TestExt/Rings-conformance-tests.jl b/ext/TestExt/Rings-conformance-tests.jl index 7dd6f2ea49..19650a303d 100644 --- a/ext/TestExt/Rings-conformance-tests.jl +++ b/ext/TestExt/Rings-conformance-tests.jl @@ -230,9 +230,11 @@ function test_Ring_interface(R::AbstractAlgebra.Ring; reps = 50) test_NCRing_interface(R; reps = reps) @testset "Basic functionality for commutative rings only" begin - @test isone(AbstractAlgebra.inv(one(R))) - test_mutating_op_like_neg(AbstractAlgebra.inv, inv!, one(R)) - test_mutating_op_like_neg(AbstractAlgebra.inv, inv!, -one(R)) + # FIXME: we can't expect general rings to support inv, not even for the one + # element, so don't test this + #@test isone(AbstractAlgebra.inv(one(R))) + #test_mutating_op_like_neg(AbstractAlgebra.inv, inv!, one(R)) + #test_mutating_op_like_neg(AbstractAlgebra.inv, inv!, -one(R)) for i in 1:reps a = generate_element(R)::T b = generate_element(R)::T