test: change structure of fixtures for blas/base/dtrmv

[ShabiShett07]

---

type: pre_commit_static_analysis_report
description: Results of running static analysis checks when committing changes. report:

• task: lint_filenames status: passed
• task: lint_editorconfig status: passed
• task: lint_markdown status: na
• task: lint_package_json status: na
• task: lint_repl_help status: na
• task: lint_javascript_src status: na
• task: lint_javascript_cli status: na
• task: lint_javascript_examples status: na
• task: lint_javascript_tests status: na
• task: lint_javascript_benchmarks status: na
• task: lint_python status: na
• task: lint_r status: na
• task: lint_c_src status: na
• task: lint_c_examples status: na
• task: lint_c_benchmarks status: na
• task: lint_c_tests_fixtures status: na
• task: lint_shell status: na
• task: lint_typescript_declarations status: na
• task: lint_typescript_tests status: na
• task: lint_license_headers status: passed ---

none

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• Change the structure of fixtures so that it matches the order of parameters in the implementation and add A_mat for user reference matrix

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request:

• none

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[stdlib-bot]

Hello! Thank you for your contribution to stdlib.

We noticed that the contributing guidelines acknowledgment is missing from your pull request. Here's what you need to do:

1. Please read our contributing guidelines.

2. Update your pull request description to include this checked box:

   - [x] Read, understood, and followed the [contributing guidelines](https://github.com/stdlib-js/stdlib/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md)

This acknowledgment confirms that you've read the guidelines, which include:

• The developer's certificate of origin
• Your agreement to license your contributions under the project's terms

We can't review or accept contributions without this acknowledgment.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. We look forward to reviewing your contribution!

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
blas/base/dtrmv	$\color{green}480/480$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}77/77$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}3/3$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$	$\color{green}480/480$ $\color{green}+100.00\%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

[kgryte]

@ShabiShett07 Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't A_mat be lower triangular per L3?

[ShabiShett07]

The reason why A_mat is in an upper triangular matrix, it us column major, so the elements are accesses in column-wise that means it should be written the form of row-major upper that was my thought related to this. Also you can see that Ais written in the same way here.

[kgryte]

Whether it is stored in row-major or column-major is not material, as A_mat should be from the perspective of the end-user. An array order is a storage layout, which should not be apparent to users. That means, if A is supposed to be lower triangular, A_mat should be lower triangular.

[kgryte]

If A is column-major and not transposed, that means that data is stored column-wise. In which case,

A_mat = [
  [ 1.0, 0.0, 0.0 ],
  [ 2.0, 4.0, 0.0 ],
  [ 3.0, 5.0, 6.0 ]
]

[ShabiShett07]

Sure I will make the necessary changes

[kgryte]

Same comment. Lower triangular?

[kgryte]

@ShabiShett07 I suggest revisiting these and ensuring that A_mat correctly reflects uplo.

[kgryte]

Left initial comments.