-
-
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: fix reading of LGL and NCOL files (broken in 2.0.0) #1347
Conversation
Current Aviator status
This PR was merged using Aviator.
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.
|
Tried to add unittest for the change in #1348. I'm new to R, so please let me know if there's anything not following common practices. |
@krlmlr @Antonov548 One of the CI issues seems to be that GLPK is not found in the macOS image, so it uses the vendored GLPK. |
ncol_path <- tempfile("testfile", fileext = ".ncol") | ||
g <- make_graph(c(1, 2, 2, 3)) | ||
write_graph(g, ncol_path, "ncol") | ||
expect_no_error(g2 <- read_graph(ncol_path, "ncol")) |
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.
do we want to know more than no error?
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.
I think this is good to merge, and the fix should be released ASAP (I'd consider this a very serious bug).
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.
do we want to know more than no error?
I supposed g and g2 are identical at the beginning, but they are not. The graphs have the same structures but there's some difference in properties. So I replaced expect_true(identical_graphs(g, g2))
with expect_no_error
to meet the minimum requirement. If that's not expected, there should be other changes after thorough inspection.
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.
NCOL will always treat vertex "identifiers" as strings, not numerical vertex IDs, so a difference there is expected.
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.
Why does CI/CD fail?
Let me know if there's anything else that you need from me here (it seems to me this is good to go). |
Thanks! |
This pull request failed to merge: PR cannot be automatically rebased, please rebase manually to continue. Once the issues are resolved, remove the Additional debug info: Failed to rebase this PR onto the latest changes from the base branch. You will probably need to rebase this PR manually and resolve conflicts). |
Fixes #1346
I'm sorry, I really don't have time for a test, but I hope someone can add one based on my first comment in #1346.