You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm running into unexpected results when calling routeEdges and am trying to understand whether it works as expected or not. When called on a simple but particular graph layout, one of the edges returned from routeEdges is directed the wrong way (from target to source). One thing I can see that sets this particular edge apart is that its segments have their .i properties reversed:
Debugging through the code, this is the only edge that gets .reversed set to true in orderEdges, so while it starts off correct, it later gets incorrectly reversed in unreverseEdges.
I did see this comment in the code:
// warning: edge paths may be reversed such that common paths are ordered consistently within bundles!
Is that what's happening? If so, should I unreverse the edge myself based on the .i values? I looked through examples invoking routeEdges but none of them take this into account.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm running into unexpected results when calling
routeEdges
and am trying to understand whether it works as expected or not. When called on a simple but particular graph layout, one of the edges returned fromrouteEdges
is directed the wrong way (from target to source). One thing I can see that sets this particular edge apart is that its segments have their.i
properties reversed:Debugging through the code, this is the only edge that gets
.reversed
set to true inorderEdges
, so while it starts off correct, it later gets incorrectly reversed inunreverseEdges
.I did see this comment in the code:
// warning: edge paths may be reversed such that common paths are ordered consistently within bundles!
Is that what's happening? If so, should I unreverse the edge myself based on the
.i
values? I looked through examples invokingrouteEdges
but none of them take this into account.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: