-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 247
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
[CORE] Fixed issue with projection onto 2D2 line when input does not lie exactly on the line. #12637
Open
rfaasse
wants to merge
9
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
geo/fix-2-noded-line-projection
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+51
−19
Open
[CORE] Fixed issue with projection onto 2D2 line when input does not lie exactly on the line. #12637
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d049fd6
Fixed issue with projection onto 2D2 line and added two unit tests to…
rfaasse 230a6f6
Slight modification to the wording of a comment
rfaasse 7de6ae2
Fixed some alignment issues.
rfaasse 977132d
Removed redundant comment
rfaasse e9d9224
Recover the tolerance, as it is necessary for certain functionality.
rfaasse 64ee075
Explicitly use array_1d<double, 3> instead of auto, to fix unexpected…
rfaasse ddd6f86
Reduce recomputation
loumalouomega f317523
Removed a comment since code is self-explanatory
rfaasse c276994
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into geo/fix-2-noded-lin…
rfaasse File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i understand that this tolerance was hardcoded before, but it is definitely now too nice ( for example it may fail for very small geometries).
Not telling that we should consider this as a blocker, but this is not a very robust solution.
Our point here is: why do we need the tolerance at all? anyhow you are assuming lenght to be different from zero, otherwise it would fail already in 1093
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I completely agree that we shouldn't have the tolerance here at all. I tried before to remove it, but the
IsInside
function seems to expect the results fromPointLocalCoordinates
to be as they are (as @loumalouomega mentioned), so tests started failing.To keep the scope of this PR limited, I only fixed the projection itself, but kept the conversion of the projection to a$\xi$ value as is.
As proposed by @loumalouomega and @matekelemen, the IsInside function should be changed (i.e. the tolerance should be applied there instead of in
PointLocalCoordinates
), so I would propose to investigate and change this in a separate small-scoped PR.