It looks like there are FLINT functions for these methods for all poly types. Do you think you could add these for fmpz_poly, fmpq_poly, arb_poly and acb_poly as well?

The usual way to test this would be to add tests in test_all.py like:

# (This covers fmpz_poly, fmpq_poly, nmod_poly, fmpz_mod_poly, fq_default_poly)
@all_polys
def test_all_polys_shift_truncate(args: _PolyTestCase[typ.epoly_p[Tc], Tc]) -> None:
    P, _, _, _ = args
    assert P([1, 2, 3]).left_shift(3) == P([0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 3])
    assert P([1, 2, 3]).right_shift(1) == P([2, 3])
    assert P([1, 2, 3]).truncate(4) == P([1, 2, 3])
    assert P([1, 2, 3]).truncate(2) == P([1, 2])


def test_arb_acb_polys_shift() -> None:
    for P in flint.acb_poly, flint.arb_poly:
        assert P([1, 2, 3]).left_shift(3) == P([0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 3])
        assert P([1, 2, 3]).right_shift(1) == P([2, 3])
        assert P([1, 2, 3]).truncate(4) == P([1, 2, 3])
        assert P([1, 2, 3]).truncate(2) == P([1, 2])

Sure, they are now added
However I observe that arb_poly and acb_poly have no comparison methods (which may be intentional since they do not represent exact values). They are currently not covered at all in test_all.py so I chose to keep it that way and simply include the doctest part.

they are now added

Thanks

They are currently not covered at all in test_all.py so I chose to keep it that way

Fair enough. Yes, they do need to be tested but I think as you say the awkwardness of the comparisons is probably why they are not.

The linter cython-lint is complaining:

$ cython-lint src/
/home/runner/work/python-flint/python-flint/src/flint/types/arb_poly.pyx:351:5: E303 too many blank lines (2)
/home/runner/work/python-flint/python-flint/src/flint/types/acb_poly.pyx:353:5: E303 too many blank lines (2)

Could you add this to release notes in the README here:

It should be all good now.

Looks good. Thanks!