-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
Clarity individual table sorting requirements before subset #3355
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.
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
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3355 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 89.76% 89.76%
=======================================
Files 29 29
Lines 31292 31292
Branches 5738 5738
=======================================
Hits 28089 28089
Misses 1794 1794
Partials 1409 1409
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
Mind pointing to the part(s) of the code from which we know this is accurate? |
benjeffery
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
Well, I think the logic is here, but I'm confused by the Line 7338 in 03ad862
Either way, we definitely need to sort first by putting parents before children, otherwise the canonical sort will not created tables that meet the individual-table requirements. |
|
Well, individuals have a |
|
The relevant code is here, I guess - looks like it sorts first by number of (individual-parent) descendants, then by referring node ID, then by original order. |
This confused me, and was the reason that I couldn't canonicalise node 0 such that it pointed to individual 0 (see below and message on slack):