-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 237
fix: update every element unassigned in the same shadow variable pass #2674
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
Closed
fodzal
wants to merge
8
commits into
TimefoldAI:main
from
fodzal:fix/single-directional-unassigned-skip
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2fd0a0c
fix: update every element unassigned in the same shadow variable pass
fodzal 7fcad37
test: pin the ruin unassign staleness through a real ruin-shaped move
fodzal 29d9aa8
docs: correct a stale "custom moves" claim in the ruin test's own jav…
fodzal ec15de5
test: split the ruin test and stop leading with ruin and recreate
fodzal d1e3cb9
test: drop the end-to-end ruin test, the graph-level one suffices
fodzal 3132a3a
simpify comment
fodzal dbc119d
review: dedicated hash map for unassigned + fix test
fodzal efdb189
Merge branch 'main' into fix/single-directional-unassigned-skip
fodzal File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Any chance we can use some sort of sentinel for the null key, and therefore avoiding the second map? Since the map is an identity hash map, we can probably use almost anything that's guaranteed not to be there already - such as some
UUID.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.
This may be where I run against Chris' previous comment. If that's the case, then I'd argue the solution is worse than the problem, and the sentinel works.
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.
Yes, I guess we can keep my first version (and add a comment in the code to explain the logic)
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.
You both do realize
changedEntitiescan be turned into an identity set to avoid duplicates? The hash check would either be here (inside the map) or inafterVariableChanged, and doing it inafterVariableChangedwould minimize the size ofchangedEntities.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.
It doesn't help if we're both looking into this. My bad - I'll remove myself from the conversation.