[11:14:05] @dvd_ccc27919 ugh, we had a major edit conflict on Z25997. Can you leave it with me for a while and I'll try to incorporate your changes. [11:16:12] Once it's fixed, I'd also like to slightly change the behaviour of Z25995 so that it returns decimals where possible (since values from Wikidata are decimals). (re @u99of9: @dvd_ccc27919 ugh, we had a major edit conflict on Z25997. Can you leave it with me for a while and I'll try to incorporate your...) [11:49:22] Hello, Jan! I just wanted to follow up on this bug. The function call option was hidden from the menu but it definitely shouldn't. The bugfix for this will be up soon. Here's the task if you want to follow its progress: T400990 šŸ™ thanks!! (re @Jan_ainali: So while Z26791 works now, I still get stuck on that bug not letting me use a function call.) [12:19:50] will that cover all of the cases in T386553 (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T386553)? (re @genocation: Hello, Jan! I just wanted to follow up on this bug. The function call option was hidden from the menu but it definitely shouldn'...) [12:21:09] Yes, I believe so! Thanks for sharing this, I will mark it as related (re @u99of9: will that cover all of the cases in T386553?) [12:23:38] Excuse me, but I didn't see this message. Is it resolved now? (re @u99of9: @dvd_ccc27919 ugh, we had a major edit conflict on Z25997. Can you leave it with me for a while and I'll try to incorporate your...) [12:25:23] Yes, I have merged your changes into the python I changed. It's working well for negatives, and my changes to precision handling are working too. The only thing we haven't got yet is null bounds. (re @dvd_ccc27919: Excuse me, but I didn't see this message. Is it resolved now?) [12:27:20] I think the problem is uphill (the implementation itself isn't even called) (re @u99of9: Yes, I have merged your changes into the python I changed. It's working well for negatives, and my changes to precision handling...) [12:28:03] which problem? which implementation? (re @dvd_ccc27919: I think the problem is uphill (the implementation itself isn't even called)) [12:28:34] The problem of unknown bounds, in both implementation (re @u99of9: which problem? which implementation?) [12:29:13] Try to put a `Wikifunctions.Debug` in the very first line of code [12:29:15] I looked in Z25827 and it seems to have code for cases where keys are null? [12:31:13] Oh, if it doesn't get *into* the code then the problem is in Z25784? (re @dvd_ccc27919: Try to put a Wikifunctions.Debug in the very first line of code) [12:32:09] Yes, or even before it (re @u99of9: Oh, if it doesn't get *into* the code then the problem is in Z25784?) [12:44:19] David do you have any insight into this? We are having trouble with quantities with null values not coming into the code implementations. For example Z26945. (re @dvd_ccc27919: Yes, or even before it) [13:10:56] I think you need to confine the void values from Z26806, for example. Iā€™m guessing your Z511 comes from trying to extract rational number keys by reference from the void objects (which isnā€™t possible). (re @u99of9: David do you have any insight into this? We are having trouble with quantities with null upper or lower bounds not coming into ...) [13:46:19] I haven't figured out what you're saying to do, sorry. The argument in the test Z26945 ultimately comes from Z22978 where I just checked that Z26954 works. So I think the bounds stay void all the way until they enter the python Z25997. Then it checks if they "is not None" before it tries to do anything with them as rationals. (re @Al: I think you need to confine the [13:46:19] void values f [13:46:19] rom Z26806, for example. Iā€™m guessing your Z511 comes from trying to extract ration...) [13:47:11] šŸŽƒ [13:59:49] Okay. Iā€™ll leave it at: surely the converters to code will fail if the ā€œrational numberā€ doesnā€™t have three keys. So I donā€™t think you can have a rational number object that is void being converted to code as anything at all. Nightā€¦ (re @u99of9: I haven't figured out what you're saying to do, sorry. The argument in the test Z26945 ultimately comes from Z22978 where I [13:59:49] just...) [15:07:13] Z26962 applies existing implementations to a quantity sanitised by Z26959: all tests pass. (re @Al: Okay. Iā€™ll leave it at: surely the converters to code will fail if the ā€œrational numberā€ doesnā€™t have three keys. So I donā€™t thi...)