Fix incorrectly copied code

[bbannier]

This code looks like it was incorrectly copied from the outEdges overload for pointers. The test suite fails and ultimately segfaults for me, so I did not add an accompanying test.

[ZigRazor]

Yes! When you have done, you can trasform the PR in Ready state.
Thank you in advance!

[bbannier]

I marked the PR ready for review.

That being said, it looks to me that most of the methods inOutEdges or inOutNeighbors are implemented incorrectly for directed graphs. All these methods use the adjacency matrix to access edges, e.g.,

CXXGraph/include/CXXGraph/Graph/Graph_impl.hpp

Lines 715 to 725 in ae9bc56

	Graph<T>::inOutEdges(shared<const Node<T>> node) const {
	if (cachedAdjMatrix->find(node) == cachedAdjMatrix->end()) {
	return std::unordered_set<shared<const Edge<T>>, edgeHash<T>>();
	}
	auto nodeEdgePairs = cachedAdjMatrix->at(node);
	std::unordered_set<shared<const Edge<T>>, edgeHash<T>> outEdges;
	for (auto pair : nodeEdgePairs) {
	outEdges.insert(pair.second);
	}

This works well-enough for undirected graphs where the adjacency matrix is kept symmetric,

CXXGraph/include/CXXGraph/Graph/Graph_impl.hpp

Lines 94 to 121 in ae9bc56

	} else {
	if (edge->isWeighted().has_value() && edge->isWeighted().value()) {
	auto edge_shared = make_shared<UndirectedWeightedEdge<T>>(
	*dynamic_cast<const UndirectedWeightedEdge<T> *>(edge));
	this->edgeSet.insert(edge_shared);
	std::pair<shared<const Node<T>>, shared<const Edge<T>>> elem = {
	edge_shared->getNodePair().second, edge_shared};
	(*cachedAdjMatrix)[edge_shared->getNodePair().first].push_back(
	std::move(elem));
	std::pair<shared<const Node<T>>, shared<const Edge<T>>> elem1 = {
	edge_shared->getNodePair().first, edge_shared};
	(*cachedAdjMatrix)[edge_shared->getNodePair().second].push_back(
	std::move(elem1));
	} else {
	auto edge_shared = make_shared<UndirectedEdge<T>>(*edge);
	this->edgeSet.insert(edge_shared);
	std::pair<shared<const Node<T>>, shared<const Edge<T>>> elem = {
	edge_shared->getNodePair().second, edge_shared};
	(*cachedAdjMatrix)[edge_shared->getNodePair().first].push_back(
	std::move(elem));
	std::pair<shared<const Node<T>>, shared<const Edge<T>>> elem1 = {
	edge_shared->getNodePair().first, edge_shared};
	(*cachedAdjMatrix)[edge_shared->getNodePair().second].push_back(
	std::move(elem1));
	}
	}

For directed graphs the adjacency matrix is not symmetric which means that it cannot be used as-is to obtain incoming edges for a node,

CXXGraph/include/CXXGraph/Graph/Graph_impl.hpp

Lines 76 to 93 in ae9bc56

	if (edge->isWeighted().has_value() && edge->isWeighted().value()) {
	auto edge_shared = make_shared<DirectedWeightedEdge<T>>(
	*dynamic_cast<const DirectedWeightedEdge<T> *>(edge));
	this->edgeSet.insert(edge_shared);
	std::pair<shared<const Node<T>>, shared<const Edge<T>>> elem = {
	edge_shared->getNodePair().second, edge_shared};
	(*cachedAdjMatrix)[edge_shared->getNodePair().first].push_back(
	std::move(elem));
	} else {
	auto edge_shared = make_shared<DirectedEdge<T>>(*edge);
	this->edgeSet.insert(edge_shared);
	std::pair<shared<const Node<T>>, shared<const Edge<T>>> elem = {
	edge_shared->getNodePair().second, edge_shared};
	(*cachedAdjMatrix)[edge_shared->getNodePair().first].push_back(
	std::move(elem));
	}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.88%. Comparing base (1b31e63) to head (1a3f4f5).
Report is 15 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #405      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.58%   97.88%   +0.29%     
==========================================
  Files          87       87              
  Lines        9492    10063     +571     
  Branches        0      660     +660     
==========================================
+ Hits         9263     9850     +587     
+ Misses        229      213      -16     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	97.88% <100.00%> (+0.29%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ZigRazor]

@ZigRazor, it looks like many of these CI runs failed because of preexisting issues; please let me know if you want me to change anything.

Don't worry @bbannier it's OK. This issue on CI will be analyzed in a second moment!