Skip to content

Open Pull Request File Map #15310

Description

@cclauss

Open Pull Request File Map: 25 Sep 2026 at 04:58 UTC

  • Script: scripts/pr_file_map.py
  • Number of PRs: 87
  • File touches (PR x file): 105
  • Distinct files touched: 96
  • Files touched by more than one PR: 0 (excluding DIRECTORY.md)
  • Open PRs touching DIRECTORY.md: 10

0 files touched by more than one open PR (possible merge conflicts)

None -- no open PRs overlap on the same file.

39 existing files

56 files not present in the working directory

10 open PRs touch DIRECTORY.md

DIRECTORY.md is auto-generated, so nearly every PR touches it. A merge conflict caused only by this file is cleared by choosing accept both in the GitHub UI -- no rebase needed.

10 PRs whose only overlap is DIRECTORY.md (safe to accept both)

0 PRs that also overlap on other files (need a review or rebase)

None.

Activity

  1. cclauss commented on Sep 13, 2026

    @cclauss
    MemberAuthor

    @priya-sundaram-dev, in the Files not present in the working directory section above, can you please review the bit_manipulation pull requests and provide a list of ready-to-merge PRs?

  2. pricklymusic commented on Sep 13, 2026

    @pricklymusic

    PR #13984 touches nearly every file in bit_manipulation, so reviewing and merging

  3. priya-sundaram-dev commented on Sep 13, 2026

    @priya-sundaram-dev
    Contributor

    Reviewed the bit_manipulation PRs. All nine are CI-green, but the directory has heavy overlap — several PRs touch the same file, and #13984 touches almost the whole directory — so merge order is the real constraint. My read:

    Ready to merge (clean, single-file, standards-compliant)

    • fix: validate binary_and inputs #15277 — best of the batch. Single file (binary_and_operator.py), adds a proper int type check, fixes the error message (positive → non-negative), and adds passing doctests for the new failure modes. I'd merge this first.

    Good, but pick-one / needs a direction call

    Not ready

    The #13984 question

    #13984 (docs across 13 files) has good content but violates the one-file-per-PR guideline and will conflict with every other PR here. Cleanest path: land the small single-file functional PRs first (start with #15277), then have #13984 rebase and mop up the docs last. Merging #13984 first would force a rebase on everything else.

  4. cclauss commented on Sep 13, 2026

    @cclauss
    MemberAuthor

    @priya-sundaram-dev, in the Files not present in the working directory section above, can you please review the Physics pull requests and provide a list of ready-to-merge PRs?

  5. priya-sundaram-dev commented on Sep 13, 2026

    @priya-sundaram-dev
    Contributor

    Done — here's my triage of the Physics PRs from the "Files not present in the working directory" section. For each I checked: CI status, whether it's a new file that doesn't collide with an existing physics/*.py, and whether it meets our bar (doctests + type hints). Merge order suggested at the end.

    ✅ Ready to merge (CI green, new file, doctests + type hints, no conflicts)

    PR File Notes
    #13343 first_law_of_thermodynamics.py Strongest of the batch — thorough docstring, 5 typed functions, extensive doctests
    #13341 magnetic_flux.py 10 doctests, typed, validation
    #13342 faraday_lenz_law.py 8 doctests, typed
    #14432 relativistic_kinetic_energy.py typed + validation doctests
    #14623 snells_law.py typed, doctests
    #14357 relativistic_velocity_summation.py typed + ValueError doctests. Minor nit: header is # comments; converting to a module-level docstring would match house style, but not a blocker

    🔁 Duplicates — pick one, close the rest

    Three PRs all create physics/hookes_law.py: #13323, #13487, #14437.

    🔧 Needs changes before merge

    ⏳ Stale — CI hasn't run on the current head (needs a rebase/re-run before evaluating)

    #9914 (boyles_law), #11744 (bragg_angle), #11580 (fresnel_diffract), #12686 (light_aberration), #12335 (rotational_partition), #12333 (translation_partition), #12129 (de_broglie). And #11608 (diffraction) is still a draft.

    Suggested merge sequence: #13343 → #13341 → #13342 → #14432 → #14623 → #14357 → #14437 (then close #13323/#13487). These are all single-file, CI-green, non-conflicting adds, so order mostly just avoids surprises.

    One caveat: I vetted structure/CI/dedup, not the physics of every formula — the ready-to-merge set all reference Wikipedia and have sane doctest values, but a quick sanity check on the constants wouldn't hurt.

  6. cclauss commented on Sep 13, 2026

    @cclauss
    MemberAuthor

    I performed the suggested merge sequence (including the module-level docstring). Thanks!

    ⏳ Stale — CI hasn't run on the current head (needs a rebase/re-run before evaluating)

    #9914 (boyles_law), #11744 (bragg_angle), #11580 (fresnel_diffract), #12686 (light_aberration), #12335 (rotational_partition), #12333 (translation_partition), #12129 (de_broglie). And #11608 (diffraction) is still a draft.

    I was able to resync all but #9914. Please re-review.

  7. priya-sundaram-dev commented on Sep 13, 2026

    @priya-sundaram-dev
    Contributor

    Re-reviewed the resynced Physics PRs. CI status on current heads:

    Ready to merge (CI green now):

    They add distinct new files (plus the usual auto-regenerated DIRECTORY.md), so no real collisions between them.

    Still red — needs one small fix:

    • Add Algorithm for Fresnel Diffraction #11580 (fresnel_diffract) — build fails on a single doctest. The fresnel_diffract docstring has one example (around line 79) written as np.isclose(...) expecting True, but under NumPy 2.x that reprs as np.True_. The sibling examples at lines 74 and 126 already wrap it as bool(np.isclose(...)) — line 79 just needs the same bool() wrapper. Once that's added it should go green.

    Not re-review-able:

  8. cclauss commented on Sep 13, 2026

    @cclauss
    MemberAuthor

    @priya-sundaram-dev, in the Files not present in the working directory section above, can you please review the machine_learning and then maths pull requests and provide a list of ready-to-merge PRs?

  9. priya-sundaram-dev commented on Sep 13, 2026

    @priya-sundaram-dev
    Contributor

    Reviewed the machine_learning and maths PRs from the Files not present in the working directory section (53 PRs). Triage is by current-head CI status + filename collisions from the map:

    ✅ CI green now, distinct new file — ready to merge:
    #10466, #12875, #13026, #13055, #13085, #13402, #13426, #13527, #13528, #13529, #13535, #13588, #13603, #13623, #13631, #13637, #13648, #13815, #13990, #13991, #13993, #14001, #14065, #14099, #14229, #14554, #14633, #14634, #14652, #14665, #14724, #14733, #14740, #14812, #14858, #14895, #14997

    ⚠️ Green but pick one (same target file):

    🕓 Stale — CI hasn't run on current head (needs rebase/re-run before evaluating):
    #10800, #11463, #11509, #12668, #12784, #13270, #13271, #13273 — plus the ridge_regression.py cluster #12111 & #12246 (both stale; also collide with #14016).

    ❌ Currently red:
    #9610 (2 failing), #9619 (1 failing), #14016 (1 failing; ridge_regression.py collision).

    One content caveat: #12976 (k_means_plus_plus) is CI-green but I left an open COMMENTED review with real gaps — empty-cluster NaN centroids masked by a module-level warnings.filterwarnings("ignore"), plus missing doctests/type hints. Worth resolving before merge even though CI passes.

    This is CI+collision triage, not a deep code review of each — happy to dig into any specific PR you want to prioritize.

  10. cclauss commented on Sep 14, 2026

    @cclauss
    MemberAuthor

    @priya-sundaram-dev I have updated the following PRs, so please revisit them:

    🕓 Stale — CI hasn't run on the current head (needs rebase/re-run before evaluating):
    #10800, #11463, #11509, #12668, #12784, #13270, #13271, #13273 — plus the ridge_regression.py cluster #12111 & #12246 (both stale; also collide with #14016).


    In the Files not present in the working directory section above, please review the pull requests in the following directories and provide a list of ready-to-merge PRs.
    backtracking, bit_manipulation, blockchain, boolean_algebra, ciphers, conversions

  11. priya-sundaram-dev commented on Sep 14, 2026

    @priya-sundaram-dev
    Contributor

    Thanks @cclauss — ran the file-map PRs in those six directories through a mechanical triage (CI rollup + mergeable_state conflict check + collision cross-ref against the map above). Scope note: this verifies each PR is mechanically ready (green CI, no merge conflicts, blocked only on the required-review gate); it does not vouch for algorithmic novelty/duplication, which still needs a human pass. I spot-checked several diffs and flagged what I found.

    ✅ Green CI + no conflicts (blocked only on required review)

    ⚠️ Ready but needs a small fix / decision first

    🕓 Stale — CI hasn't run on current head (need rebase/re-run before evaluating)

    ❌ Failing CI

    Happy to take the next batch of directories (data_structures, dynamic_programming, graphs, maths, sorts, strings) the same way if that's useful.

  12. priya-sundaram-dev commented on Sep 14, 2026

    @priya-sundaram-dev
    Contributor

    Re-checked the PRs you updated (same mechanical pass — mergeable_state + current-head CI rollup). Unfortunately the base-branch update left most of them with merge conflicts, so they need an author rebase before they can be evaluated:

    🔀 Green CI but now conflicting (dirty) — need a rebase first

    ❌ Still red after the update

    🕓 No checks on current head yet

    ridge_regression.py cluster

    Net: nothing in this batch is merge-ready right now — the conflicts and the three ruff/build failures need author action first. Happy to re-run this the moment any of them get rebased. Scope caveat as before: this is mechanical readiness (CI + conflicts), not a vouch for algorithmic novelty.

  13. cclauss commented on Sep 15, 2026

    @cclauss
    MemberAuthor

    @priya-sundaram-dev Can you look at the three contested files and pick the best PR to merge for each? We are running out of time before our October 1 Hacktoberfest deadline, so I will merge only one PR per file and close all the others. If you need any rebases done or tests rerun, please let me know.

  14. priya-sundaram-dev commented on Sep 15, 2026

    @priya-sundaram-dev
    Contributor

    @cclauss Went through all three contested files — for each I ran the current-head CI rollup, checked mergeable, and read the diffs against CONTRIBUTING.md and the file's existing conventions. My pick + reasoning per file, plus what to do with the rest:

    searches/binary_search.py → merge #13891, close the rest

    Most of these 11 are two ideas: "return the leftmost index for duplicates" (#13841, #13891, #13901, #13955), and doc/message-only tweaks (#14051, #14622, #14708, #14456).

    One judgment call for you: #13891 changes search semantics (returns leftmost occurrence, presumably per #13840). If you'd rather not change the contract, the safe low-risk alternative is the doc-only #14708 (adds time-complexity to the docstring). But if #13840 is the driver, #13891 is the one to take.

    machine_learning/loss_functions.py → merge #11250, but don't hard-close #11240/#11263

    These don't actually collide semantically — they each append a new loss function; the conflict is purely textual (same file tail).

    Heads-up: the three 2024 PRs show no CI history (predate the current CI), so they'll each need a rebase + a CI rerun to confirm the doctests — the >>> outputs look right on read, but I'd want them green before merge.

    machine_learning/linear_regression.py → #14637 with two requested changes

    This file was migrated from requests to httpx since 2024, which decides most of it:

    If you take my picks, the ones I'd love a CI rerun on are #11250 and #13891 (both should be green, but they're worth confirming before you merge). Happy to do the rebases on #13891/#11250/#14637 myself if that helps clear them faster before Oct 1.

  15. cclauss commented on Sep 19, 2026

    @cclauss
    MemberAuthor

    @priya-sundaram-dev If you have time, can you please review these so we can close this category?

    4 PRs that also overlap with other files (need a review or rebase)


    Also, under the files not present in the working directory, the categories:

    • electronics
    • financeial
  16. priya-sundaram-dev commented on Sep 19, 2026

    @priya-sundaram-dev
    Contributor

    @cclauss Reviewed all four. Summary:

    machine_learning/ridge_regression.py — contested (#12246 vs #14016):

    #13102 (columnar/skytale ciphers) — adds two brand-new files (ciphers/columnar_transposition.py, ciphers/skytale_cipher.py), 16 doctests, no edits to existing working-dir files, CI green. Ready to merge.

    #13475 (Project Euler #60) — adds a new project_euler/problem_060/ package, 28 doctests in sol1.py, CI green, self-contained. Ready to merge.

  17. cclauss commented on Sep 20, 2026

    @cclauss
    MemberAuthor

    @priya-sundaram-dev Under the files not present in the working directory, in the open pull request map above, please review the PR in the sections.

    • electronics
    • financeial
    • matrix
    • neural_network
    • physics

    We only have about ten days before Hacktoberfest begins.

  18. priya-sundaram-dev commented on Sep 20, 2026

    @priya-sundaram-dev
    Contributor

    @cclauss Went through one representative open PR in each of the five sections you flagged. Verified the numeric doctests locally where relevant.

    ✅ Ready to merge (clean, type-hinted, doctested, correct):

    • matrix/matrix_operation.py — Added matrix permanent operation #13987 (matrix permanent). Correct Laplace-style expansion without sign alternation; base case and recursion are right. Both doctests reproduce (permanent([[1,2],[3,4]]) == 10, [[1.5,2.5],[3,4]] == 13.5). Only nit: the list[list[int]] hint understates that it accepts floats too — cosmetic, not blocking.
    • neural_network/activation_functions/softsign.py — feat: Add Softsign activation function #13133. x / (1 + |x|) is correct; the array([-0.833…, -0.5, 0., 0.5, 0.833…]) doctest reproduces exactly. Matches the style of the existing sigmoid/tanh modules in that folder. Ship it.
    • financial/macaulay_duration.py — Feat macaulay duration #14506. Well done — from __future__ import annotations, full type hints, input-validation doctests, and a reference. I recomputed all three: 6.83, 4.43, 5.62 — all match. Good candidate to merge.

    🛠 Needs one change before merge:

    • physics/collisions.py — Add collisions #14787. The physics is right (elastic_collisions returns 2·v_com − v_initial, the correct 1-D elastic result). Two things I'd ask for first: (1) elastic_collisions returns a formatted string ('2.76 ; -3.54') — it should return a numeric tuple[float, float] so callers can compute with it; formatting belongs in main(), not the function. (2) The PR also rewrites the docstring of the existing, working physics/potential_energy.py. I'd split that out — a focused "add collisions" PR is far easier to merge and won't rot into conflicts. (Minor: type_collision compares floats with ==, fine for exact doctest inputs but brittle for computed ones — a tolerance would be safer.)

    ❌ Fails repo standards as-is:

  19. cclauss commented on Sep 20, 2026

    @cclauss
    MemberAuthor

    @priya-sundaram-dev Nice. Merged or closed those PRs, except 9535 and 14787. I need a bit more review on the former, and I added your comments to the latter.

    Please review the PR in the sections.

    • electronics
    • financeial
    • matrix
    • neural_network
    • physics
  20. priya-sundaram-dev commented on Sep 20, 2026

    @priya-sundaram-dev
    Contributor

    Re-reviewed the list. Grouping by recommendation, with a note on "real algorithm vs. duplicate/puzzle" since that was the key question. (CI status is as of now; several have gone green since the "stale" grouping.)

    ✅ Real algorithms, CI green, worth merging (after normal review):

    🟡 Real but needs a rebase/CI re-run before evaluating (checks haven't run on current head):

    🔴 Duplicates / made-up-puzzle territory — recommend closing:

    Net: the clear keepers are #11827 and #11113 now; #12123 and #11785 after CI re-runs. The rest I'd close as duplicates or out-of-scope puzzles. Happy to do a line-level review on any of the keepers you want to move forward.

  21. cclauss commented on Sep 21, 2026

    @cclauss
    MemberAuthor

    @priya-sundaram-dev, please review.

    Files touched by more than one open PR (possible merge conflicts)

    Coordinate, rebase, or land these together to avoid conflicts. Which is best? The current file or one of the two PRs attempting to modify it?

  22. nicecartoon commented on Sep 21, 2026

    @nicecartoon

    I will prioritize reviewing #13906 and #13909 for graphics/digital_differential_analyzer_line.py to resolve the conflict before the other graphics PRs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions