fix: symmetry in nested predicates #1069
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
Related issue/PR: #1068
This PR fixes the bug listed in #1068: that symmetric predicates does not match if it appears within a nested predicate.
Implementation strategy and design decisions
Previously, we only check the symmetry of the outer-most predicate. In the case of matching
Not(Bond(A, B))
againstNot(Bond(B, A))
, we only check the symmetry ofNot
, and then it comparesBond(A, B)
andBond(B, A)
without ever considering symmetry. The fix essentially applies this symmetric consideration on all levels of the predicate recursively.A test case has also been added to consider this case.
Examples with steps to reproduce them
This now prints "Hello" on the screen because it successfully matched
Not(SBond(O, H))
againstNot(SBond(H, O))
. Previously, nothing is printed.Checklist
diagrams/
folder