-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fixed bug in AllThreeWaistsOfComplex #274
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #274 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 78.20% 78.21% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 61 61
Lines 16969 16983 +14
==========================================
+ Hits 13270 13284 +14
Misses 3699 3699
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you! Is it possible that you change the pull request such that not the complete paths.gd file is changed? Moreover, the construction of the path looks complicated. Is it sufficient just to change Edges
to InnerEdges
in line 999 in the old code and nothing else?
Changing Edges(surface) to InnerEdges(surface) is not going to solve the problem. In your example
( v3, E5, v4, E7, v1, E12, v3 ) ] it can be seen that the open vertex-edge paths in the above list are not even 3-waists. These paths consist of a two-waist and an edge that is connected to the two waist. These cases were not caught by the previous implementation. Therefore I introduced this adjustments. |
Ah okay! Can you add my example to the tests? |
#269