-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 173
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: kf+gsf: correct hole-tagging for edge case #3637
Conversation
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.
Similar to #3391 I wonder if we should rather return all track states and then let the user trim them if necessary. This would remove involved error prone logic from the filters and might be what is rather expected from the algorithms if they get starting parameters without finding a measurement directly.
That would be an interesting point to discuss. It might need some rework of our truth fitting procedures thought. I would love to get the underlying bug of this PR fixed before. |
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.
👍
hashes conflicted
Quality Gate passedIssues Measures |
We want to add the
HoleFlag
, when(precedingMeasurementExists && surfaceIsSensitive)
. We had the case, that we would wrongly always tag holes, whensurfaceIsSensitive && surfaceHasMaterial
because then the check forprecedingMeasurementExists
would have been short-circuited.The physmon does no change, because there we use the ODD which has material and sensitive on different surface, therefore could not be short-circuited. That's why we only see a difference in the generic detector hashes.
blocked:
sourceLink
#3647