Some modernization of RCSP - #595
andreacassioli wants to merge 6 commits into
Conversation
|
Boost dependency footprint vs Header-inclusion weights (graph files pulling each direct dependency in): No header-inclusion-weight changes. Transitive Boost modules: 47 → 47 (0) |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
Compiler-warning counts vs
|
andreacassioli
changed the title
jeremy-murphy
left a comment
jeremy-murphy
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mostly just a question about one change to the logic.
| vis.on_label_not_feasible(*new_label, g); | ||
| if (!b_feasible) | ||
| { | ||
| vis.on_label_not_feasible(*new_label, g); | ||
| new_label.reset(); | ||
| } | ||
| else | ||
| { | ||
| vis.on_label_feasible(*new_label, g); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you sure this doesn't subtly change behaviour?
A different visitor is called in each branch, but you have collapsed it to only calling one.
| } | ||
| std::list< sp_label_type > dsplabels = get(vec_vertex_labels, t); | ||
| if(!b_all_pareto_optimal_solutions) | ||
| sp_label_list dsplabels = get(vec_vertex_labels, t); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good point, there are some more places where I could use it indeed
2 participants
Before submitting
developbranch.Type of change
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
What this PR does
autoin few placesusinginstead of typedefsMotivation
RCSP code needs some work to be modernized and improve its readability. I am working on it a bit at the time.
Testing
Checklist
b2in thetest/directory).