Remove redundant validation check #2267
Merged
Conversation
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 check essentially verified that the length of a half-edge is non-zero, but I don't think this is actually important. At least I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't work, and there might be legitimate use cases. What is important, is whether the vertices that bound the half-edge are coincident, but in this regard, this check could have lead to false positives, as the half-edge could be bounded by the same vertex on both sides. In addition, there are other validation checks that check for coincident vertices, either existing in code, or tracked in issues.
|
Removing this validation check also un-complicates what I'm currently working on for #2116, which is how I got to thinking about this validation check in the first place. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This check essentially verified that the length of a half-edge is non-zero, but I don't think this is actually important. At least I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't work, and there might be legitimate use cases.
What is important, is whether the vertices that bound the half-edge are coincident, but in this regard, this check could have lead to false positives, as the half-edge could be bounded by the same vertex on both sides.
In addition, there are other validation checks that check for coincident vertices, either existing in code, or tracked in issues.