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.

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

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

fixed bug in AllThreeWaistsOfComplex #274

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

ReymondAkpanya
Copy link
Collaborator

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 10, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.21%. Comparing base (2713b15) to head (ef1fd39).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

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              
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
gap/Paths/paths.gd 100.00% <ø> (ø)
gap/Paths/paths.gi 84.98% <100.00%> (+0.21%) ⬆️

Copy link
Collaborator

@MeikeWeiss MeikeWeiss left a 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?

@ReymondAkpanya
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Changing Edges(surface) to InnerEdges(surface) is not going to solve the problem. In your example

s:=SimplicialSurfaceByUmbrellaDescriptor([ (1,4,6,7,5,3), (1,7,5,8,2,3), (1,7,6,8,2,4), (2,4,6,8,5,3) ]); 
AllThreeWaistsOfComplex(s);
[ ( v1, E1, v2, E6, v3, E9, v1 ), ( v1, E1, v2, E6, v3, E11, v1 )
, | v2, E1, v1, E8, v4, E9, v1 |, ( v2, E1, v1, E8, v4, E10, v2 )
, ( v1, E2, v3, E6, v2, E9, v1 ), ( v1, E2, v3, E6, v2, E11, v1 )
, | v3, E2, v1, E7, v4, E11, v1 |, ( v3, E2, v1, E7, v4, E12, v3 )
, | v3, E3, v2, E4, v4, E10, v2 |, ( v3, E3, v2, E4, v4, E12, v3 )
, ( v2, E3, v3, E5, v4, E10, v2 ), | v2, E3, v3, E5, v4, E12, v3 |
, ( v2, E4, v4, E8, v1, E9, v2 ), ( v2, E4, v4, E8, v1, E10, v2 )
, ( v3, E5, v4, E7, v1, E11, v3 ),

( 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.

@MeikeWeiss
Copy link
Collaborator

Ah okay! Can you add my example to the tests?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants