Fix depth-preserving rewrite - #690
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #690 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 83.83% 83.79% -0.04%
==========================================
Files 189 189
Lines 29888 29034 -854
==========================================
- Hits 25056 24329 -727
+ Misses 4832 4705 -127 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Collaborator
Author
|
fixed another bug in level evaluation, where visited nodes now return correct depth rather than 0. |
Collaborator
Author
|
Will create another PR for cleanup... |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
regarding the issue #687
there was a wrong inequality.
also thinking to clean up code a bit: depth computation is duplicated (depth view already does it) and seemingly incomplete (it only updates two TFO levels for each replacement, which is probably okay for most cases, followed by one TFI level check per iteration, but it might not work when a target node has more than 2 levels of fanouts that are already visited or new, so the follow-up one TFI level check fetches old level).