Skip to content

Fix Non Recursive Depth First Search #2207

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 11, 2020
Merged

Fix Non Recursive Depth First Search #2207

merged 3 commits into from
Sep 11, 2020

Conversation

marcoscannabrava
Copy link
Contributor

Describe your change:

  • Add an algorithm?
  • Fix a bug or typo in an existing algorithm?
  • Documentation change?

Checklist:

  • I have read CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • This pull request is all my own work -- I have not plagiarized.
  • I know that pull requests will not be merged if they fail the automated tests.
  • This PR only changes one algorithm file. To ease review, please open separate PRs for separate algorithms.
  • All new Python files are placed inside an existing directory.
  • All filenames are in all lowercase characters with no spaces or dashes.
  • All functions and variable names follow Python naming conventions.
  • All function parameters and return values are annotated with Python type hints.
  • All functions have doctests that pass the automated testing.
  • All new algorithms have a URL in its comments that points to Wikipedia or other similar explanation.
  • If this pull request resolves one or more open issues then the commit message contains Fixes: #{$ISSUE_NO}.
  • The algorithm was passing tests but was exploring the vertices in a breadth-first approach even though it was using a stack.
  • I can add an issue to implement a test for this in the future since the current test only checks the final output but not the search method itself.

@TravisBuddy
Copy link

Hey @marcoscannabrava,
Something went wrong with the build.

TravisCI finished with status errored, which means the build failed because of something unrelated to the tests, such as a problem with a dependency or the build process itself.

View build log

TravisBuddy Request Identifier: 5861b5e0-c832-11ea-ab6f-3547fdb4f9a3

@TravisBuddy
Copy link

Hey @marcoscannabrava,
Something went wrong with the build.

TravisCI finished with status errored, which means the build failed because of something unrelated to the tests, such as a problem with a dependency or the build process itself.

View build log

TravisBuddy Request Identifier: de28a1b0-c838-11ea-ab6f-3547fdb4f9a3

@cclauss
Copy link
Member

cclauss commented Aug 11, 2020

Does the doctring at the top of the file match the new code?

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Sep 11, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale Used to mark an issue or pull request stale. label Sep 11, 2020
@spamegg1
Copy link
Contributor

@marcoscannabrava This file was changed by recent merges (spacing, indentation etc., the content is the same I think) so now it conflicts your older version. You can either rebase, or refork and start over. This might help with rebase.

@cclauss The docstring at the top is strange. First it says it calls itself recursively, then it says "Instead of recursively calling with a node...", then provides pseudo code that IS recursively calling with a node, then the actual code does not. It's very very confusing. That docstring should be rewritten or removed I think.

@stale stale bot removed the stale Used to mark an issue or pull request stale. label Sep 11, 2020
@marcoscannabrava
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cclauss & @spamegg1 you're absolutely right. It was an old docstring I hadn't changed. I believe it should be acceptable now.
👍

@spamegg1
Copy link
Contributor

@marcoscannabrava I see you got rid of the conflict.
Good luck!

cclauss
cclauss reviewed Sep 11, 2020
View reviewed changes
graphs/depth_first_search.py Outdated
Comment on lines 9 to 20
:param graph: directed graph in dictionary format
:param vertex: starting vertex as a string
:returns: the trace of the search
>>> G = { "A": ["B", "C", "D"], "B": ["A", "D", "E"],
... "C": ["A", "F"], "D": ["B", "D"], "E": ["B", "F"],
... "F": ["C", "E", "G"], "G": ["F"] }
>>> start = "A"
>>> output_G = list({'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G'})
>>> all(x in output_G for x in list(depth_first_search(G, "A")))
True
>>> all(x in output_G for x in list(depth_first_search(G, "G")))
True
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why indent these lines?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No particular reason. Just unindented them.

@marcoscannabrava @cclauss
Reindent docstring by 1 space
0747409 
Co-authored-by: Christian Clauss <cclauss@me.com>
@cclauss cclauss merged commit a191f89 into TheAlgorithms:master Sep 11, 2020
stokhos pushed a commit to stokhos/Python that referenced this pull request Jan 3, 2021
@marcoscannabrava @cclauss @stokhos
Fix Non Recursive Depth First Search (TheAlgorithms#2207)
e32e14c 
* Fix Non Recursive Depth First Search

* Unindent docstring

* Reindent docstring by 1 space

Co-authored-by: Christian Clauss <cclauss@me.com>

Co-authored-by: Christian Clauss <cclauss@me.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@cclauss cclauss cclauss approved these changes

@swapnanildutta swapnanildutta swapnanildutta approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@marcoscannabrava @TravisBuddy @cclauss @spamegg1 @swapnanildutta