-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 201
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
Fix issue #749 #750
base: humble
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Fix issue #749 #750
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Sukhvansh2004 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sukhvansh2004 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sukhvansh2004 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sukhvansh2004 <[email protected]>
Hi @clalancette , I noticed you are an active maintainer of this repository. Would you mind reviewing this PR? If everything looks good, it would be great if you could merge it into the repo. Thanks for your time and help! |
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.
Making a core change like this will need to have a test case that we can review for correctness. And then from that we can consider the correctness of the existing implementation and the new proposed one.
How did you validate the indexing shifts?
And why did you remove the time check?
@@ -1583,25 +1583,24 @@ void BufferCore::_chainAsVector( | |||
} | |||
} | |||
|
|||
if (source_time != target_time) { |
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.
Removing this check is clearly wrong. You only traverse the tree a second time if the times are different.
So what I saw in the function implementation was that the indexing in the erase function was not correct and the target chain not pushed correctly back into the source chain, so have fixed that.
Fixes #749