No warning in case when 2 ISets containing 2 nodes each are merged sharing same path from root

[PARAG00991]

Steps to reproduce the issue:

1. Create a tree as shown below:
   
2. Now, merge the nodes in ISets as shown below:
   
3. Now, if we try to merge the 2 ISets containing 2 nodes each shown, we know that the 2 ISets have same no. of moves and both belong to same player but both share the same path from root.
   
   If we click on 1 ISet and then on other, it will do nothing but if we keep trying to click alternately on 2 ISets we get warning as Couldn't merge the information sets.Please select two information sets with same number of moves which is still not appropriate. It should give us a warning as Couldn't merge the information sets.Please select two information sets that do not share a path from root.

[stengel]

Parag, many thanks for noticing all these issues and your patches - should this not be treated as a general case of "not merging info sets when the new info set would contain two nodes that share a path from the root"? Is this resolved by your earlier pull request 84?

--Bernhard

• Parag Jain notifications@github.com [20-04-2016 06:08:45 -0700]:

Steps to reproduce the issue:

1. Create a tree as shown below:
   
2. Now, merge the nodes in ISets as shown below:
   
3. Now, if we try to merge the 2 ISets containing 2 nodes each shown, we know that the 2 ISets have same no. of moves and both belong to same player but both share the same path from root.
   
   If we click on 1 ISet and then on other, it will do nothing but if we keep trying to click alternately on 2 ISets we get warning as Couldn't merge the information sets.Please select two information sets with same number of moves which is still not appropriate. It should give us a warning as Couldn't merge the information sets.Please select two information sets that do not share a path from root.

---

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#86

[PARAG00991]

Yeah, it can be considered as a general case as you mentioned and this issue needs to be resolved separately. #84 resolves only the case when new info set is being merged with root of the tree.