fix: adjacent_vertices() and incident_edges() are now correct if the "return.vs.es" option is FALSE#1606
Merged
krlmlr merged 1 commit intoigraph:mainfrom Nov 30, 2024
stibu81:fix_adjacent_vertices
Merged
fix: adjacent_vertices() and incident_edges() are now correct if the "return.vs.es" option is FALSE#1606krlmlr merged 1 commit intoigraph:mainfrom stibu81:fix_adjacent_vertices
adjacent_vertices() and incident_edges() are now correct if the "return.vs.es" option is FALSE#1606krlmlr merged 1 commit intoigraph:mainfrom
stibu81:fix_adjacent_vertices
Conversation
Contributor
Current Aviator status
This PR was merged manually (without Aviator). Merging manually can negatively impact the performance of the queue. Consider using Aviator next time.
See the real-time status of this PR on the
Aviator webapp.
Use the Aviator Chrome Extension
to see the status of your PR within GitHub.
|
Member
|
@krlmlr @Antonov548 It should be checked if this bug affects the auto-generated interfaces, and if yes, fixed there as well. |
Contributor
|
Thanks for the issue and the PR, good catch! I checked all instances of |
krlmlr
changed the title
adjacent_vertices() and incident_edges() are now correct if the "return.vs.es" option is FALSE
Contributor
Author
|
Yes, I'm happy to do that. Sorry, I wasn't aware of I thought about adding a test, but did not do that because I could not find any existing tests for In addition, I would suggest a test for |
Contributor
|
Thanks! Yes, our tests are a bit sparse, adding the tests you're suggesting to |
Contributor
|
Thanks! Please open a new PR for the other changes. |
Contributor
|
@luukvdmeer: this breaks an assumption in sfnetworks. I don't have time to propose a PR today. Can you release an update on short notice? Thanks! |
Contributor
|
Adding @wlandau for drake and targets. I see two options:
Would the second option work for y'all? If not, no problem, I'll go with the first. Thanks! |
Contributor
|
Check results with the igraph release candidate: |
Contributor
Author
|
Anything I can do to help? |
Contributor
|
Thanks, Stefan. This depends on the course of action we agree on. |
Contributor
Author
|
OK, just let me know. |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
3 participants
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.
fixes #1605
The problem is that in
adjacent_vertices(), 1 is only added to the vertices ifreturn.vs.esisTRUE.