fix: Missing parameter of particle selector in python bindings #4010
Conversation
WalkthroughIn the realm of particle physics and Python bindings, a subtle yet significant change has emerged. The Changes
Poem
Finishing Touches
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
Examples/Python/src/TruthTracking.cpp (1)
69-71: Documentation improvements suggest, I must. Hmmmm.Clear the purpose of
inputParticleMeasurementsMapis not. Help Python users, a docstring would. Consider adding documentation, you should.ACTS_PYTHON_MEMBER(inputParticles); -ACTS_PYTHON_MEMBER(inputParticleMeasurementsMap); +// Map connecting particles to their measurements +ACTS_PYTHON_MEMBER(inputParticleMeasurementsMap); ACTS_PYTHON_MEMBER(outputParticles);
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Examples/Python/src/TruthTracking.cpp(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: merge-sentinel
🔇 Additional comments (1)
Examples/Python/src/TruthTracking.cpp (1)
70-70: Approve this change, I do! Hmmmm.Correctly placed, this new parameter is. With existing patterns, it aligns well. In TruthTrackFinder and TruthSeedingAlgorithm, used properly it is.
Run this verification, we must:
✅ Verification successful
Verified, this change is! Hmmmm.
Consistent throughout the Force, this parameter flows. In C++ algorithms and Python bindings alike, properly used it is. A necessary addition to maintain balance between realms, yes.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistent usage of inputParticleMeasurementsMap across the codebase # Search for other potential uses of this parameter rg "inputParticleMeasurementsMap" --type cpp # Check if parameter is used in Python tests fd -e py | xargs rg "inputParticleMeasurementsMap"Length of output: 4023
|
--- END COMMIT MESSAGE ---
Any further description goes here, @-mentions are ok here!
feat,fix,refactor,docs,choreandbuildtypes.Summary by CodeRabbit