Make adjset::is_canonical more strict #1227
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
BradWhitlock
deleted the
bugfix/whitlock/more_strict_adjset_is_canonical
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A host code was giving me adjset groups called group_0_1 and group_1_0 on domains 0 and 1, respectively. The canonical way of naming would be group_0_1. The compare_pointwise function used in the adjset validation tool calls is_canonical to determine whether it needs to rename adjset components but the function was not strict enough to detect this. Consequently, the tool would successfully extract a topology for one adjset group and not the other, causing the pointwise comparison to fail.
This change makes adjset::is_canonical check more of the group name to see if the numbers it contains are sorted. That fixes the pointwise comparison.