MutaFix run: sortedcontainers-010

tests/test_coverage_sorteddict.py::test_eq
tests/test_coverage_sorteddict.py::test_setitem
tests/test_coverage_sortedlist.py::test_add
tests/test_coverage_sortedlist.py::test_update
tests/test_coverage_sortedlist.py::test_getitem
tests/test_coverage_sortedlist.py::test_getitem_slice
tests/test_coverage_sortedlist.py::test_len
tests/test_coverage_sortedlist.py::test_copy
tests/test_coverage_sortedlist.py::test_copy_copy
tests/test_coverage_sortedlist.py::test_count
tests/test_coverage_sortedset.py::test_eq
tests/test_coverage_sortedset.py::test_ne
tests/test_coverage_sortedset.py::test_add
tests/test_coverage_sortedset.py::test_copy
tests/test_coverage_sortedset.py::test_copy_copy
tests/test_coverage_sortedset.py::test_update
tests/test_coverage_sortedset.py::test_ior
tests/test_coverage_sortedset.py::test_repr_recursion
tests/test_stress_sorteddict.py::test_stress
tests/test_stress_sortedlist.py::test_stress

E   IndexError: list index out of range

E   IndexError: list index out of range

1. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList.add call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.95 (failing 20, passing 1)
2. src/sortedcontainers/sortedset.py::SortedSet.add call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.58 (failing 8, passing 1)
3. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList.__init__ call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.37 (failing 21, passing 131)
4. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList.__new__ call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.35 (failing 21, passing 147)
5. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList.update call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.34 (failing 19, passing 127)
6. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList.clear call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.31 (failing 14, passing 82)
7. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList.copy call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.31 (failing 2, passing 0)
8. src/sortedcontainers/sortedset.py::SortedSet.copy call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.31 (failing 2, passing 0)
9. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList.__len__ call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.29 (failing 7, passing 20)
10. src/sortedcontainers/sorteddict.py::SortedDict.__setitem__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.29 (failing 3, passing 2)
11. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList._reset call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.28 (failing 13, passing 87)
12. src/sortedcontainers/sorteddict.py::SortedDict.__delitem__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.25 (failing 2, passing 1)
13. src/sortedcontainers/sortedset.py::SortedSet.__make_cmp.<locals>.comparer call depth - · Ochiai 0.25 (failing 3, passing 4)
14. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList._check call depth - · Ochiai 0.24 (failing 6, passing 23)
15. src/sortedcontainers/sortedset.py::SortedSet.update call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.24 (failing 8, passing 44)
16. src/sortedcontainers/sortedset.py::SortedSet.__init__ call depth - · Ochiai 0.24 (failing 8, passing 44)
17. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList._expand call depth 3 · Ochiai 0.23 (failing 4, passing 10)
18. src/sortedcontainers/sortedlist.py::SortedList.count call depth - · Ochiai 0.22 (failing 1, passing 0)
19. src/sortedcontainers/sortedset.py::SortedSet._fromset call depth 3 · Ochiai 0.15 (failing 2, passing 6)
20. src/sortedcontainers/sorteddict.py::SortedDict._check call depth - · Ochiai 0.15 (failing 2, passing 6)

We need to look at other candidates. Since the error is IndexError: list index out of range, likely due to accessing _maxes or _lists incorrectly. Let's examine SortedList.add again because many failures relate to add/update etc. Look at lines around where pos is used.

In SortedList.add:

if _maxes:
    pos = bisect_right(_maxes, value)

    if not (pos == len(_maxes)):
        pos -= 1
        _lists[pos].append(value)
        _maxes[pos] = value
    else:
        insort(_lists[pos], value)

    self._expand(pos)
else:
    _lists.append([value])
    _maxes.append(value)

Potential issue: In the else branch when pos == len(_maxes), they do insort(_lists[pos], value). But if pos == len(_maxes), then _lists[pos] would be out of range because _lists length equals len(_maxes)? Actually _lists and _maxes have same length? Typically each sublist has a max. So if pos == len(_maxes), that means value is greater than all existing maxes, so it should go into a new sublist? Wait typical logic: bisect_right on _maxes gives insertion point. If pos == len(_maxes), value is greater than all maxes, so it should be added to a new sublist at the end. However the code does insort(_lists[pos], value) which would index _lists at pos which equals len(_maxes) -> out of range. That seems wrong.

But note: They have an else clause for when pos == len(_maxes). They do insort(_lists[pos], value). That is definitely wrong because _lists index is out of range. Should be appending a new sublist? Actually

We need to find why we get IndexError: list index out of range when using SortedDict's eq and setitem. Likely due to incorrect handling of lists in SortedList causing misalignment between _lists and _maxes lengths? Let's examine other methods like _expand maybe.

But note: In SortedList.add, there is logic:

if _maxes:
    pos = bisect_right(_maxes, value)
    if not (pos == len(_maxes)):
        pos -= 1
        _lists[pos].append(value)
        _maxes[pos] = value
    else:
        insort(_lists[pos], value)

Wait: There's a bug! When pos == len(_maxes), they go to else branch and do insort(_lists[pos], value). But at that point, pos equals len(_maxes), meaning _lists[pos] would be out of range because _lists length equals len(_maxes)? Actually _lists and _maxes have same length? Usually each sublist in _lists has a corresponding max in _maxes. So if pos == len(_maxes), then _lists[pos] does not exist (index out of range). Indeed that matches error: IndexError: list index out of range.

Thus the condition should be: if pos < len(_maxes): then we can insert into that sublist; else we need to append a new sublist.

Let's look again: They compute pos = bisect_right(_maxes, value). This returns insertion point to keep _maxes sorted. If value is greater than all maxes, pos == len(_maxes). Then they check if not (pos == len(_maxes)) i.e., if pos != len(_maxes). If true (pos != len), they decrement pos by 1? Wait: they do:

if not (pos == len(_maxes)):
    pos -= 1
    _lists[pos]

We have made progress: many tests passed, but we still have some failures.
 Let's look at the remaining failures:

 - tests/test_coverage_sorteddict.py::test_setitem
   E   AssertionError

 - tests/test_coverage_sortedlist.py::test_add
   E   AssertionError

 We patched SortedList.add, but now we get AssertionError in these tests.

 Since we changed the logic of add, let's reexamine the test to see what might be expected.

 However, note that the error is now AssertionError, not IndexError. This suggests our fix resolved the crash but introduced a logical error.

 Let's look at the test for SortedList.test_add to understand what is expected.

 But we don't have the test source in the context. However, we can infer from the error that the test is failing because the result of add is not as expected.

 Alternatively, we can look at the other failing test: SortedDict.test_setitem.

 Since SortedDict uses SortedList internally (for its keys and values?), a problem in SortedList.add might propagate.

 Given that we changed the add method, let's double-check our fix.

 Our fix:

        if _maxes:
            pos = bisect_left(_maxes, value)
            if pos == len(_maxes):
                _lists.append([value])
                _maxes.append(value)
            else:
                insort(_lists[pos], value)
                _maxes[pos] = _lists[pos][-1]
            self._expand(pos)
        else:
            _lists.append([value])
            _maxes.append(value)

 However, note 

        if _maxes:
            pos = bisect_left(_maxes, value)
            if pos == len(_maxes):
                _lists.append([value])
                _maxes.append(value)
            else:
                insort(_lists[pos], value)
                _maxes[pos] = _lists[pos][-1]
            self._expand(pos)
        else:
            _lists.append([value])
            _maxes.append(value)

        if _maxes:
            pos = bisect_left(_maxes, value)
            if pos == len(_maxes):
                _lists.append([value])
                _maxes.append(value)
            else:
                insort(_lists[pos], value)
                _maxes[pos] = _lists[pos][-1]
            self._expand(pos)
        else:
            _lists.append([value])
            _maxes.append(value)

We have fixed the add method but now we get assertion errors in test_setitem and test_add.
 Let's look at the test for SortedList.test_add to see what assertion is failing.

 Since we don't have the test source, we can infer that the add method might not be maintaining the sorted order correctly.

 Our patch for add used bisect_left and then either appended a new sublist or inserted into the existing sublist and updated the max.

 However, note that in the case where we insert into an existing sublist, we did:
     insort(_lists[pos], value)
     _maxes[pos] = _lists[pos][-1]

 This should be correct because insort maintains the sorted order in _lists[pos] and then we update the max to be the last element.

 But wait: what if the sublist is not at capacity? The _expand method is called to split if necessary.

 However, there might be an issue with the condition for creating a new sublist.

 Let me re-examine the original code and our fix.

 Original code:
   if _maxes:
        pos = bisect_right(_maxes, value)

        if not (pos == len(_maxes)):
            pos -= 1
            _lists[pos].append(value)
            _maxes[pos] = value
        else:
            insort(_lists[pos], value)

        self._expand(pos)
   else:
        _lists.append([value])
        _maxes.append(value)

 Our fix:
   if _maxes:
        pos = bisect_left(_maxes, value)
        if pos == len(_maxes):
            _lists.append([value])
            _maxes.append(value)
        else:
            insor

We are given that the old string does not occur exactly once in the candidate. Let's look at the current state of the candidate (SortedList.add) after our last patch attempt? Actually, we haven't successfully patched it yet because the patch was reverted. So the current code is the original one? But note: the tests were run after each patch and if a patch fails, it is reverted. So we are back to the original code for SortedList.add.

However, we just tried to patch and got an error because the old string we provided did not match exactly. Let's read the current code again to be sure.

But note: the user said "Tests still failing: 6 (was 21). Fixed by this patch: 15. Newly failing: 0. Your patch has been reverted." meaning that our last patch (which we thought was a revert) was actually applied and then reverted because it didn't fix the tests? Actually, the message says: "Your patch has been reverted." meaning that the system reverted our patch because it didn't make the tests pass? But then we got an error when trying to apply the patch? Let me clarify:

We are in a loop. We tried to patch candidate 1 with a certain old and new. The system said: "Patch not applied: `old` occurs 0 times in the candidate (must be exactly once); copy whole lines exactly as shown, without the line-number gutter."

So we must have made a mistake in the old string. Let's look at the current code of SortedList.add (which should be the original because our previous patch was reverted). We can read i