Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

fix: Prefer external surface candidates in Navigation #3989

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

fix: Prefer external surface candidates in Navigation #3989

wants to merge 2 commits into from
+29 −3

Conversation

andiwand
Copy link
Contributor

External surfaces get infinite bounds during navigation and should always be preferred over any other surface in the geometry. This is not the case right now as a surface which is flagged as external might live on the same plane as a standard surface and we might still end up targeting the standard one first.

In this PR I propose to sort surfaces not only by path length but also by the fact if they are external or not. This will prioritize external surfaces over standard ones.

This is important during refitting with for example the KF. In case the estimated trajectory aims for a neighboring surface we would observe holes instead of the actual measurements.

@andiwand andiwand added this to the next milestone Dec 16, 2024
@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 16, 2024

Important

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@andiwand
Copy link
Contributor Author

@benjaminhuth what we briefly discussed

benjaminhuth
benjaminhuth reviewed Dec 16, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@benjaminhuth benjaminhuth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good!
To me this feels like a thing we should actually make a unittest for, e.g., some telescope geometry which has plane surfaces closer than surfaceTolerance, where we put one as external into the sequence... But this is tedious of course...

Core/include/Acts/Propagator/Navigator.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@github-actions github-actions bot added the Component - Core Affects the Core module label Dec 16, 2024
@andiwand
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks good! To me this feels like a thing we should actually make a unittest for, e.g., some telescope geometry which has plane surfaces closer than surfaceTolerance, where we put one as external into the sequence... But this is tedious of course...

I agree this should be unit tested. Sadly none of this external surface stuff is unit tested and it is very tedious to set it up and verify to do the correct thing.

I wondered if this will show up in a physmon diff as we might run into this problem with the ODD already.

This change is rather low on my priority list and conflicts with #3449 which is much more important IMO. So I would delay putting this in in any case.

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

📊: Physics performance monitoring for 4c72855

Full contents

physmon summary

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@benjaminhuth benjaminhuth benjaminhuth left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Component - Core Affects the Core module
Projects
None yet
Milestone
next
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@andiwand @benjaminhuth