Add PFD verification #463
Add PFD verification #463
Conversation
nemakin
force-pushed
the
PFD-verification
branch
from
49d0d51
to
28f2f04
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall seems fine, but most of the code just repeats fd_verifier. As soon as #396 and #458 are merged there will be a task to add afd verification with different measures, which will differ from this pr only in CalculateStatistics, so directly copying code from fd_verifier for the 3rd time will look quite bad. I suggest you moving all the common logic of pfd_verifier and fd_verifier to a new base class (or at least talk to @chernishev and give this task to someone else). Do it in a separate pr.
| error_ = 0; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| bool PFDHolds() const { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure if we need a separate function to check whether pfd holds or not (and store max_fd_error_) since afd_verifier just returns the error to the user and pfd is pretty much an afd. But this is a topic to discuss with the maintainers, let me know if you've done it already.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For the future reference: we just talked and decided to fix immediate problems, found by @egshnov. The architecture rework will come later, when both mining and validation PRs for other metrics will be merged.
| return clusters_violating_pfd_; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| void CalculateStatistics(model::PositionListIndex const* x_pli, |
nemakin
force-pushed
the
PFD-verification
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0cd2e87
to
fea2afd
Compare
nemakin
force-pushed
the
PFD-verification
branch
from
fea2afd
to
97ba170
Compare
chernishev
force-pushed
the
PFD-verification
branch
from
97ba170
to
988bbe6
Compare
nemakin
force-pushed
the
PFD-verification
branch
from
988bbe6
to
8a3ea79
Compare
This PR implements PFD verification algorithm along with some tests, python bindings and examples.