feat(web): implement SearchQuotientCluster merging 🚂 #15516
+307
−14
Conversation
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
User Test ResultsTest specification and instructions User tests are not required Test Artifacts
|
keymanapp-test-bot
bot
changed the title
jahorton
force-pushed
the
change/web/add-same-edge-detection
branch
from
1f4897f to
56d7a8f
Compare
jahorton
force-pushed
the
feat/web/cluster-merging
branch
2 times, most recently
from
407cb6d to
edf4712
Compare
jahorton
force-pushed
the
change/web/add-same-edge-detection
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d4f3a18 to
1755556
Compare
This PR serves to implement SearchQuotientCluster.merge() in full. If two halves of a previous .split() operation are passed in, they should be fully remerged - into a single, refused SearchQuotientNode segment. Build-bot: skip build:web Test-bot: skip
jahorton
force-pushed
the
feat/web/cluster-merging
branch
from
edf4712 to
6150186
Compare
ermshiperete
approved these changes
Feb 10, 2026
Comment on lines
+196
to
+197
| thisTailSpaceIds.find((entry) => entry == space.inputSource.subsetId) | ||
| && thisTailInputSource.end == spaceHeadInputSource.start; |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
May be better to use Array.some here. Theoretically space.inputSource.subsetId can be 0 in which case Array.find would also return 0 i.e. falsy, and so isOnSplitInput would be false even though it should be true. I'm pretty sure this can't happen in our implementation (even though I don't know why), but using Array.some would be cleaner IMO (or thisTailSpaceIds.find(...) !== undefined)
Suggested change
| thisTailSpaceIds.find((entry) => entry == space.inputSource.subsetId) | |
| && thisTailInputSource.end == spaceHeadInputSource.start; | |
| thisTailSpaceIds.some((entry) => entry == space.inputSource.subsetId) | |
| && thisTailInputSource.end == spaceHeadInputSource.start; |
| // a prior split; if we'd split, it'd be a SearchQuotientCluster on both | ||
| // ends. | ||
| if(space instanceof SearchQuotientSpur) { | ||
| const parentMerge = this.merge(space.parents[0]) as SearchQuotientSpur; |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
construct takes a SearchQuotientNode, so there's no need to cast to a SearchQuotientSpur.
Suggested change
| const parentMerge = this.merge(space.parents[0]) as SearchQuotientSpur; | |
| const parentMerge = this.merge(space.parents[0]); |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This PR serves to implement SearchQuotientCluster.merge() in full. If two halves of a previous .split() operation are passed in, they should be fully remerged - into a single, refused SearchQuotientNode segment.
Build-bot: skip build:web
Test-bot: skip