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

[fix] alignment bug #222

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Nov 26, 2023
Merged

[fix] alignment bug #222

merged 7 commits into from
Nov 26, 2023

Conversation

h-2
Copy link
Member

@h-2 h-2 commented Nov 17, 2023

tests still need fixing

@h-2 h-2 force-pushed the align_bug branch 2 times, most recently from ecccc41 to 742533a Compare November 24, 2023 17:58
@h-2 h-2 requested a review from sarahet November 24, 2023 17:59
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ struct QueryException : public std::runtime_error
inline int _bandSize(uint64_t const seqLength)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should the return type here also be int64_t?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done. I don't think this affects anything though.

// pairwise "swallow" from right to left
for (auto it = matches.rbegin(); it < matches.rend() - 1; ++it)
{
Match & l = *it;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Given that the comment says from right to left, I understood it in a way that we are still "looking" at the vector the same way as before. However, now that we are backwards iterating technically l is to the right of r in the sense of that comment and it confused me naming-wise when I tried to understand what is happening (because it does not match the l and r in the loop before order-wise). Can we find a different way of naming this that is more intuitive?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's a good point. I have switched r and l. Is that OK?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, thanks!

Copy link
Member

@sarahet sarahet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@sarahet sarahet merged commit d995cb5 into seqan:lambda3 Nov 26, 2023
8 checks passed
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.

None yet

2 participants