Add MinGap function

[mleleszi]

implements #186 / opencax/GSoC#82

[elalish]

Looking at the CI - is there a chance you're working from an out-of-date branch? You might want to try git pull origin master. Let us know when you're ready for some review.

[pca006132]

the CI seems fine, the function TriangleDistance indeed is only declared but undefined.

[mleleszi]

Added the missing definition, so the build should work fine now. (tests are still gonna fail though)

[mleleszi]

@elalish @pca006132
I probably still need to refactor/clean up a bit but I think It's ready for an initial review.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 97.53086% with 4 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.53%. Comparing base (d437097) to head (3786209).
Report is 10 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
bindings/c/manifoldc.cpp	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
src/utilities/include/tri_dist.h	98.27%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #765      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.84%   88.53%   -3.31%     
==========================================
  Files          37       56      +19     
  Lines        4976     8096    +3120     
  Branches        0      871     +871     
==========================================
+ Hits         4570     7168    +2598     
- Misses        406      928     +522     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[elalish]

Thanks, this is looking pretty good! Since the public API looks stable and good you can also go ahead and add the various bindings as well - look at one of our recent PRs that added an API and you'll see which files to change.

[pca006132]

but maybe you want to apply for another project considering how fast you are doing!

[elalish]

A few minor things, but this looks good to me. Let's see what @pca006132 thinks.

[elalish]

By the way, excellent work on this feature! How would you like to approach your GSOC application? Do you know what you'd like to work on next?

[pca006132]

Overall this looks great!

[mleleszi]

@elalish @pca006132
Thank you, I've had a lot of fun working on this! However, I've realized that I might not have enough time over the summer to commit to GSOC. But that doesn't mean I'll stop contributing, I plan to keep at this long term! I'm already looking at what to pick up next. I might take a look at #723 or one of the GSOC tasks that don't get picked for GSOC (maybe #667). I'll take a look at the other open issues as well. (I'm open to suggestions as well)

[elalish]

@mleleszi It's great to hear that you have a realistic understanding of your time commitments. Good expectation setting is one of the most important and least common traits of a software engineer. We would certainly welcome more contributions as your time allows!

I think #723 would be great - it's nice that we have such a clear example where we know there are orders of magnitude speed increase available. And since you already have some familiarity with our Collider from this PR, that should give you a leg up. Perf PRs are nice because you already have an algorithm that's getting the right answer with lots of tests - all you need to do is not let its answers change.

[elalish]

Nice job parallelizing! One minor change and let's merge this.

[elalish]

Beautiful, thank you!