Refactor graph traversal methods to use new getConnectedComponents API
#3753
+147
−89
Conversation
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
…API. Signed-off-by: Leclerc Clement <[email protected]>
…API. Signed-off-by: Leclerc Clement <[email protected]>
… graph-connected-components # Conflicts: # iidm/iidm-impl/src/main/java/com/powsybl/iidm/network/impl/NodeBreakerTopologyModel.java
flo-dup
requested changes
Feb 3, 2026
|
|
||
| void addVertex(C component, int vertexIndex, V vertexObject); | ||
|
|
||
| default boolean isComponentValid(C component) { |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This method does not make much sense in the graph world. So keep it to iidm side, that is,
- always add the connected component in the graph world,
- and in iidm world get all the connected components and then dismiss the ones which are not valid for iidm.
|
|
||
| traverse(v, TraversalType.BREADTH_FIRST, (v1, e, v2) -> { | ||
| E edgeObject = edges.get(e).getObject(); | ||
| if (edgeObject == null || isTraversable.test(edgeObject)) { |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we might want to stop even if edgeObject == null. So we should reconsider the traverse signature. We probably need to replace the Predicate<E> isTraversable with a Traverser
Comment on lines
601
to
602
| Vertex<V> destVertex = vertices.get(v2); | ||
| if (destVertex != null) { |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just call directly the collector with the integer, no need to fetch the vertex object
rolnico
changed the title
getConnectedComponents …getConnectedComponents API
flo-dup
requested changes
Feb 3, 2026
|
|
||
| collector.addVertex(component, v, vertex.getObject()); | ||
|
|
||
| traverse(v, TraversalType.BREADTH_FIRST, (v1, e, v2) -> { |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- this traverse method of the UndirectedGraph interface should be deprecated
- this traverse method in UndirectedGraphImpl should be private and a new parameter boolean[] encounteredEdges added
… traversal components. Signed-off-by: Leclerc Clement <[email protected]>
…Predicate` Signed-off-by: Leclerc Clement <[email protected]>
…` API, and enhance vertex object handling in graph traversal implementations. Signed-off-by: Leclerc Clement <[email protected]>
|
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.
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem?
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Refactoring
What is the current behavior?
Currently, BusBreakerTopologyModel, NodeBreakerTopologyModel, and DcTopologyModel all contain duplicated logic to traverse the graph and identify connected components (bus construction).
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
Introduced getConnectedComponents method and ConnectedComponentCollector interface in UndirectedGraph
Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API?
If yes, please check if the following requirements are fulfilled
What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR? (migration steps)
Other information: