Allow valid Cycles to be empty; validate Face boundary instead
#2095
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I think "disconnected" can be understood to imply that they were connected in the first place, while "not connected" does carry no such connotation. Also, `Edge` has been renamed to `HalfEdge` a while ago, so that part of the new name is also more accurate.
That empty cycles are invalid makes the result of `BuildFace::unbound` invalid by default, requiring a hacky workaround (`Services::only_validate`). I think empty cycles are actually fine. What's a problem is, if such an empty cycle is used as the exterior of a face, and I will add a validation check for that specifically.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If empty
Cycles are invalid, then it's not possible to construct a face by creating it without a boundary and then adding one (i.e.Face::unbound().add_half_edges(...); this is pseudo-code, but the actual API works similar). This was a known problem, and there was a workaround for it (services.only_validate(specific_object)).I ran into this problem again while working on #2023, but this time I had the realization that empty
Cycles are actually okay, and it's unboundFaces that are the problem. In this pull request, I've re-shuffled the validation checks accordingly. This made it possible to remove the workaround, which made for a nice simplification.