Additional_nodes DTWF/FIXED_PEDIGREE #2176
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2176 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.46% 98.68% +7.22%
==========================================
Files 20 11 -9
Lines 11210 3950 -7260
Branches 2280 900 -1380
==========================================
- Hits 10253 3898 -6355
+ Misses 521 28 -493
+ Partials 436 24 -412
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
algorithms.py
Outdated
| @@ -771,6 +771,12 @@ def flush_edges(self): | |||
| self.tables.edges.add_row(left, right, parent, child) | |||
| self.edge_buffer = [] | |||
|
|
|||
| def update_node_flag(self, node_id, flag): | |||
| self.flush_edges() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need this flush_edges? Should probably be done in the other function we just added?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Adding flush_edges() to store_additional_nodes_edges() would flush the edges twice in some cases, as it is also called by store_node().
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see - should we call flush_edges to the non-store-node path in store_additional_nodes_edges then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a surprising side-effect to have here in update_node_flag
GertjanBisschop
force-pushed
the
unary_dtwf_fp
branch
from
51b4381
to
4cf4cf3
Compare
algorithms.pyoutline for trackingadditional_nodesforDTWFandFIXED_PEDIGREEmodels.