MutaFix run: sortedcontainers-007

tests/test_coverage_sorteddict.py::test_index_key
tests/test_coverage_sortedkeylist_modulo.py::test_index
tests/test_coverage_sortedkeylist_negate.py::test_index
tests/test_stress_sortedkeylist.py::test_stress

E   ValueError: 0 is not in list

E   ValueError: 0 is not in list

1. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedKeyList.index call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.40 (failing 4, passing 16)
2. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::identity call depth - · Ochiai 0.32 (failing 1, passing 1)
3. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedKeyList.bisect_left call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.22 (failing 1, passing 3)
4. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList.__reversed__ call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.20 (failing 1, passing 4)
5. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedKeyList.__mul__ call depth 3 · Ochiai 0.20 (failing 1, passing 4)
6. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedKeyList.bisect_key_left call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.18 (failing 1, passing 5)
7. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedKeyList.clear call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.18 (failing 4, passing 93)
8. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedKeyList.update call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.16 (failing 4, passing 116)
9. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedKeyList.__init__ call depth 3 · Ochiai 0.16 (failing 4, passing 127)
10. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList._reset call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.14 (failing 3, passing 92)
11. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedKeyList.remove call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.12 (failing 1, passing 12)
12. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedKeyList.__new__ call depth 3 · Ochiai 0.12 (failing 3, passing 119)
13. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList._loc call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.12 (failing 1, passing 13)
14. src/sortedcontainers/sorteddict.py::SortedDict.__init__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.12 (failing 2, passing 55)
15. src/sortedcontainers/sorteddict.py::SortedDict.update call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.12 (failing 2, passing 55)
16. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList.__new__ call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.12 (failing 2, passing 57)
17. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedKeyList._delete call depth 3 · Ochiai 0.12 (failing 1, passing 14)
18. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedKeyList.add call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.10 (failing 1, passing 17)
19. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList.__make_cmp.<locals>.comparer call depth - · Ochiai 0.09 (failing 1, passing 23)
20. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList.__getitem__ call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.09 (failing 1, passing 24)

We need to re-examine the problem. The test failure indicates that `index` is raising ValueError for value 0 when it should be present. Let's look at the test again:

In test_index_key:
    temp = SortedDict(negate, ((val, val) for val in range(100)))
    temp._reset(7)
    assert all(temp.index(val) == (99 - val) for val in range(100))

So we have a SortedDict with key function `negate` (which I assume is `lambda x: -x`). The items are (val, val) for val in 0..99. So the keys are -val, i.e., 0, -1, -2, ..., -99. Since the key is negate, the sorted order of keys is ascending: -99, -98, ..., -1, 0? Wait: negate(val) = -val. So for val=0 -> key=0; val=1 -> key=-1; ... val=99 -> key=-99. So keys are 0, -1, -2, ..., -99. Sorted in ascending order: -99, -98, ..., -1, 0. So the sorted list of values (by key) should be: val=99 (key=-99), val=98 (key=-98), ..., val=0 (key=0). So the index of val should be 99-val? Indeed, val=0 -> index 99, val=99 -> index 0. The test expects index(val) == 99 - val.

Now, after `temp._reset(7)`, what does _reset do? We need to look at SortedList._reset (candidate 10). Let's examine that.

But first, note that the error is "0 is not in list". Which 0? The value being searched is 0 (the integer 0). In the SortedDict, the values are the same as keys? Actually SortedDict maps key to value, but here we constructed with ((val, val) for val in range(100)), so both key and value are val. So we are looking for value 0, which corresponds to key=0 (since key=neg

We have to look at the failure again. The test does:
    temp = SortedDict(negate, ((val, val) for val in range(100)))
    temp._reset(7)
    assert all(temp.index(val) == (99 - val) for val in range(100))

So we create a SortedDict with keys being the values from 0 to 99, but the key function is `negate` (which I assume is `lambda x: -x`). So the SortedDict is ordered by negative keys, meaning the actual order of the keys in the dict is from 99 down to 0? Actually, if we negate, then the key for value 0 is 0, for 1 is -1, ... for 99 is -99. So the sorted order by key (ascending) would be: -99, -98, ..., 0. That corresponds to the original values: 99, 98, ..., 0. So the SortedDict's keys (the original values) are in descending order: 99,98,...,0.

Then we call `_reset(7)`. This resets the internal structure (the _lists, _keys, etc.) with a load factor of 7. Then we check that `temp.index(val)` returns `99 - val`. For val=0, we expect index 99; for val=99, we expect index 0.

But the error says: `ValueError: 0 is not in list` when trying to get the index of 0. So the index method is failing to find the value 0.

Now, note that the SortedDict is built on top of SortedKeyList (for the keys). The index method we are looking at is from SortedKeyList. However, the SortedDict's index method might be overridden? Let's check the candidates: we don't see SortedDict.index in the list. But the test is calling `temp.index` on a SortedDict. We must look at the SortedDict class to see if it

We have identified that the problem is in the `index` method of `SortedKeyList`. The test case uses a `SortedDict` with a `negate` key function, which means the keys are negative of the values. The test does:

    temp = SortedDict(negate, ((val, val) for val in range(100)))
    temp._reset(7)
    assert all(temp.index(val) == (99 - val) for val in range(100))

After `_reset(7)`, the internal structure is rebuilt. The `index` method is expected to return the index of `val` in the sorted-key list, which for the negate key function should be in descending order.

Looking at the `index` method, we see that it computes:

    key = self._key(value)

For the negate key function, `self._key(value) = -value`.

Then it does:

    pos = bisect_left(_maxes, key)

Here, `_maxes` is a list of the maximum keys in each sublist. Since the keys are negative of the values, and the values are in ascending order in the original data, the keys are in descending order. However, note that the `_maxes` are computed from the `_keys` which are the keys of each sublist, and each sublist's keys are in ascending order? Actually, no: the entire list is sorted by the key function. So if the key function is `negate`, then the list is sorted in descending order of the original values.

But wait: the `SortedKeyList` maintains the invariant that the list is sorted according to the key function. So for key=negate, the list is sorted in ascending order of the key, which is descending order of the value.

Now, th

We have identified that the line `stop -= 1` (line 2360) is problematic. The comment says that `stop` is the stop index (default None, end of sorted-key list). In Python slicing and indexing, the stop index is exclusive. However, the method's docstring says: "Index must be between `start` and `stop` for the `value` to be considered present." This implies that `stop` is inclusive? Actually, in the context of the `index` method, it is similar to `list.index` which takes `start` and `stop` as slice-like indices (so stop is exclusive). But note: the built-in `list.index(x, start, stop)` uses stop as exclusive.

However, the current code does:
   if stop is None: stop = _len
   ... adjust for negatives and clamp ...
   then if stop <= start: raise error
   then stop -= 1

This makes the stop exclusive? Let's see: after adjusting, stop is in [0, _len]. Then we subtract 1, so stop becomes in [-1, _len-1]. Then we use `start <= loc <= stop` (inclusive). So if the user passed stop=_len (meaning the whole list), after adjustment stop becomes _len-1, and then we allow loc up to _len-1 (the last index). That seems correct for an inclusive bound? But wait: the built-in `list.index` with stop=_len would search up to but not including the element at index _len (which doesn't exist). So the built-in stop is exclusive.

In our code, we want to mimic the built-in: the stop index is exclusive. So we should not include the element at index `stop`. Therefore, the condition should be `start <= loc

We have identified that the issue is likely in the handling of the `stop` parameter in the `index` method.
 The current code does:
   if stop is None:
       stop = _len
   if stop < 0:
       stop += _len
   if stop > _len:
       stop = _len

   Then later: stop -= 1

 And then in the loop: if start <= loc <= stop: ... elif loc > stop: break

 The problem is that the `stop` parameter is intended to be inclusive? Actually, in Python list indexing, slicing uses stop as exclusive.
 However, the docstring says: "Index must be between `start` and `stop` for the `value` to be considered present."

 Let's look at the example in the docstring of the index method:
   >>> skl = SortedKeyList([5, 4, 3, 2, 1], key=neg)
   >>> skl.index(2)
   3

 In this example, the list is [5,4,3,2,1] and the key function is neg, so the keys are [-5,-4,-3,-2,-1] and the values are sorted by key: [5,4,3,2,1] (because neg(5)=-5 is the smallest, so 5 comes first? Actually, wait: the key is applied to the value, and the list is kept sorted by the key. So with key=neg, the list [5,4,3,2,1] becomes sorted by neg: 
   neg(5) = -5, neg(4)=-4, ... neg(1)=-1 -> so the order of keys is -5, -4, -3, -2, -1 (ascending). Therefore the list of values is [5,4,3,2,1] (because the value with the smallest key comes first).

 Now, skl.index(2) returns 3. Indeed, the value 2 is at index 3 (0-indexed) in [5,4,3,2,1].

 The docstring also shows:
   >>> skl.index(0)
   Traceback (most recent call last):
     ...
   ValueError