ideals of non-maximal orders in number fields

[yyyyx4]

Resolves #34198.

[yyyyx4]

I know of some follow-up work under active development that depends on this pull request; hence, it would be very helpful if this could get reviewed quickly in order to minimize the amount of effort spent on rebasing those other changes.

[pjbruin]

I know of some follow-up work under active development that depends on this pull request; hence, it would be very helpful if this could get reviewed quickly in order to minimize the amount of effort spent on rebasing those other changes.

I'm happy to review this. I have one question for now: in doctest changes such as

--- a/src/sage/rings/number_field/class_group.py
+++ b/src/sage/rings/number_field/class_group.py
@@ -32,13 +32,11 @@ EXAMPLES::
     sage: I * I.ideal()   # ideal classes coerce to their representative ideal
     Fractional ideal (4, 1/2*a + 3/2)
 
-    sage: O = K.OK(); O
-    Maximal Order in Number Field in a with defining polynomial x^2 + 23
-    sage: O*(2, 1/2*a + 1/2)
+    sage: K*(2, 1/2*a + 1/2)
     Fractional ideal (2, 1/2*a + 1/2)
-    sage: (O*(2, 1/2*a + 1/2)).is_principal()
+    sage: (K*(2, 1/2*a + 1/2)).is_principal()
     False
-    sage: (O*(2, 1/2*a + 1/2))^3
+    sage: (K*(2, 1/2*a + 1/2))^3
     Fractional ideal (1/2*a - 3/2)
 """
 

could we change O*(2, 1/2*a + 1/2) to something more descriptive, like O.fractional_ideal(2, 1/2*a + 1/2) or K.fractional_ideal(2, 1/2*a + 1/2), rather than to the less descriptive K*(2, 1/2*a + 1/2)?

[yyyyx4]

Thanks! Done.

[pjbruin]

I have some proposed further changes that suppress the warnings introduced in sage.rings.finite_rings. They are in a new branch at https://github.com/pjbruin/sage/tree/public/ideals_for_non_maximal_orders . What is the correct way to deal with such "reviewer patches"?

[yyyyx4]

Thanks! Presumably the easiest way is for me to simply merge in your branch, which is what I just did. Alternatively, I think you could've made a pull request on my branch associated to this pull request.

[github-actions]

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 68b4462; changes) is ready! 🎉

[tscrim]

Thanks! Presumably the easiest way is for me to simply merge in your branch, which is what I just did. Alternatively, I think you could've made a pull request on my branch associated to this pull request.

Yes, merging in the specific commit(s) is the best way. There's no need for doing an overly complicated local fork PR IMO. (This is usually done after my first option: Curse at GH's non-collaborative workflow until I feel slightly better.)

[yyyyx4]

Thank you for the review!