# Non standard modules not included with code

Code submitted for review is supposed to be "working code". I imagine this to be for 2 reasons:

1. We are not looking to fix broken code
2. Being able to run the code allows deeper review

Is this correct? Does (2) apply?

When reviewing for style or readability it is less important but questions like this that want performance improvements really suffer from not being able to run the code.

In this case a non standard module is imported by the Python code but is not made available to reviewers. I added a comment back in April to point out that we cannot profile without the module, but there has been no response and the question has received no answers.

I am disinclined to suggest closing a question just because the code cannot be run if it is just asking for feedback (provided it isn't obviously broken). However, when the question specifically asks for performance improvements are there any other options?

I'm hoping to see any other possibilities before resorting to suggesting closing.

• Code that can't be executed as posted isn't necessarily broken. Sure it's nice if you can run it as a reviewer, but in some cases that's simply impossible without posting an entire project. You can always ask in a comment for the OP to supply the missing relevant pieces that would allow for a more complete review. May 29 '14 at 22:43

There are many supplementary materials that could make things easier for reviewers and increase the response rate: test cases, a live example hosted externally, the database schema, output from SQL EXPLAIN… They would all be beneficial to be included in a question, but we don't require them.
For this particular question, it turns out that import maths is an extraneous import. The program never uses anything in the maths module.