-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 61
added circular grid to ronchi and foucault images #335
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
Open
atsju
wants to merge
1
commit into
master
Choose a base branch
from
averageProfile
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+212
−22
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
clang-tidy diagnostic
foucaultview.cpp:217:5: warning: [clang-analyzer-security.FloatLoopCounter]
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.
I think we should leave this code as is. I thought I'd rewrite it as an integer loop like this:
And we could do the above replacement and it would work fine. I just swapped the 2 variables that are looping through (rPx and mirrorRadiusMM) and fixed the scaling for it to work the other way around. But I think it's clearer the first way and it's fine in this case. If you do % and set the stepping to 10% it will do 10% to 100% circles. There is a tiny chance it will miss the 100% circle. But I tried the existing program and it worked fine. Plus it's no big deal if the 100% circle isn't printed. People know where 100% is (it's the outer edge of the ronchi/foucault).
And for other cases such as stepping by 10mm or stepping by 1 inch etc, it's unlikely to ever end up exactly at the outer edge anyway.
Also my suggested code now has a small bug because we have rounded (or "floored") the step size to the nearest integer so it will understep in many cases. So really it's buggier if we use an integer in the loop.
So @atsju, is there some comment we can add to this line of code to tell it not to worry about a double as a loop counter?
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.
To be clear, I'm leaning to agree with clang on that other complaint of a double in a loop, the one where it went from -1 to 1. I'm going to look at that code probably in the next few days. But in this case I think the double is the better way to do this code.