Bring Doctest coverage for element_ext_pari.py to 100%

[roed314]

Part of metaticket #12024

CC: @robertwb

Component: doctest coverage

Author: David Roe

Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman, Aly Deines

Merged: sage-5.0.beta3

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12261

[roed314]

Author: David Roe

[roed314]

comment:1

Attachment: 12261.patch.gz

[kcrisman]

Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman

[kcrisman]

comment:2

I'm finding it hard to find any problems with this that aren't nearly trivial. Comments that may or may not warrant addressing:

• Typo

  The has of this element 
  

• def __compat(self, other): removed because...? (I assume this is obvious to someone familiar with this code, but they haven't reviewed this.)

• I really like that you actually mention that the doctests are indirect when they are. We need to do that more.

• You got 'em:

$ ../../sage -coverage ../../devel/sage/sage/rings/finite_rings/element_ext_pari.py
----------------------------------------------------------------------
../../devel/sage/sage/rings/finite_rings/element_ext_pari.py
SCORE ../../devel/sage/sage/rings/finite_rings/element_ext_pari.py: 100% (31 of 31)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

and testing seems fine.

• Although not really part of this ticket, one could add this to the reference manual; if so, might as well change See self.square_root() to See :meth:`square_root` or whatever the right syntax is.
• Really picky; is it Pari or pari, officially? I feel like this was unified at some point in our docs.
• There is a typo that has nothing to do with this ticket but should be fixed - probabalistic

Let me know what you want to deal with on a refresh (probably at least the typos) and otherwise this should go in.

[roed314]

Attachment: 12261.2.patch.gz

Apply this patch only

[roed314]

comment:3

Sorry: I should have made a reviewer patch rather than a whole new one. But I'd already qrefreshed...

[kcrisman]

Work Issues: commit message, PARI (maybe?)

[kcrisman]

comment:4

That's ok. Patch is fine.

I don't feel comfortable giving final positive review because of the __compat issue - again, I'm sure this is obvious to those in the know, but I don't want to be responsible for removing a function it turns out is crucial to someone (even an underscore function).

Also (less crucially) now I realize that I think the folks in Bordeaux really want PARI and not Pari... I just don't know, and hate all that stuff, but it's probably important to them.

Jeroen probably also won't accept this due to the commit "message". I'm really sorry... I know from experience how much work doctest upgrades end up taking when you think they will be a 5-minute job.