stdlib-js
feat: add c implementation for `blas/base/dgemv`
type: pre_commit_static_analysis_report description: Results of running static analysis checks when committing changes. report:
- task: lint_filenames status: passed
- task: lint_editorconfig status: passed
- task: lint_markdown status: passed
- task: lint_package_json status: passed
- task: lint_repl_help status: na
- task: lint_javascript_src status: passed
- task: lint_javascript_cli status: na
- task: lint_javascript_examples status: na
- task: lint_javascript_tests status: passed
- task: lint_javascript_benchmarks status: passed
- task: lint_python status: na
- task: lint_r status: na
- task: lint_c_src status: missing_dependencies
- task: lint_c_examples status: missing_dependencies
- task: lint_c_benchmarks status: missing_dependencies
- task: lint_c_tests_fixtures status: na
- task: lint_shell status: na
- task: lint_typescript_declarations status: na
- task: lint_typescript_tests status: na
- task: lint_license_headers status: passed ---
Progresses #2039
Description
What is the purpose of this pull request?
This pull request:
- Adds C implementation for the package
blas/base/dgemv
Related Issues
Does this pull request have any related issues?
This pull request:
- progresses #2039
Questions
Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?
No.
Other
Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.
No.
Checklist
Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.
- [x] Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.
@stdlib-js/reviewers
Coverage Report
| Package | Statements | Branches | Functions | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| blas/base/dgemv | $\color{red}748/749$ $\color{green}+99.87\%$ |
$\color{red}116/117$ $\color{green}+99.15\%$ |
$\color{green}6/6$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$ |
$\color{red}748/749$ $\color{green}+99.87\%$ |
The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.
Okay. After doing some fairly extensive clean-up and refactoring (not all of which stems from this PR), I think this PR is shaping up.
@ShabiShett07 Would you mind adding tests to ensure 100% test coverage? Looks like we need some additional argument validation tests and we need a fixture in which one or more elements of X are zero.
Once those are added, this PR should be good to merge. Please be sure to closely review the changes I made.
@ShabiShett07 Also, please ensure that when working on PRs in which you have merged other PRs on the same package that you merge those changes into your PR. In this case, you had added some validation changes to dgemv earlier, but those were not present in this PR. Only after I merged in the latest develop did those changes appear, resulting in duplicated code.
@ShabiShett07 Also, please ensure that when working on PRs in which you have merged other PRs on the same package that you merge those changes into your PR. In this case, you had added some validation changes to
dgemvearlier, but those were not present in this PR. Only after I merged in the latestdevelopdid those changes appear, resulting in duplicated code.
got it, that means I need to merge the develop branch and then check for the latest changes
@kgryte, I have added test cases, did a seperate fixture but instead added test cases there itself, as we do for exceptional cases
@kgryte, also I will be going and making changes to the similar PRs and then inform you