-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Refactor equal metrics comparison code #1039
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
13 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7852273
Add missing Arguments header to doc comment
alexdewar 0be0151
Tidying
alexdewar a65961c
Simplify code for warning about equally good assets
alexdewar 0fefe9c
warn_on_equal_appraisal_outputs: Change `warn!` to `debug!`
alexdewar 3a3e9a9
appraisal.rs: Factor out comparing assets to separate function
alexdewar 3cd5896
Simplify `compare_asset_fallback`
alexdewar a2d8ae7
Move `compare_asset_fallback` to `investment.rs`
alexdewar cbd50d2
Improve doc comment for `compare_assets_fallback`
alexdewar b1afe73
Also include commission year in log when warning about equal appraisa…
alexdewar 5957fc1
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into refactor-equal-metric…
alexdewar f2e643c
Fix compile error
alexdewar 7a6a3a8
Merge branch 'main' into refactor-equal-metrics-comparison
alexdewar c632d74
Fix: Not printing last duplicate asset in `warn_on_equal_appraisal`
alexdewar 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
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
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.
The new implementation changes behavior when comparing two non-commissioned (candidate) assets. The old
compare_with_equal_metricsreturnedOrdering::Equalwhen both assets were non-commissioned, regardless of their commission years. The new tuple comparison(asset2.is_commissioned(), asset2.commission_year()).cmp(&(asset1.is_commissioned(), asset1.commission_year()))will order non-commissioned assets by commission year.This means candidates with different years will now be ordered (newer first) instead of being treated as equal. This appears to be unintentional since the PR is described as a refactoring with no functional changes. If this behavior change is intentional, it should be documented in the PR description and tested.
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.
Oh, this is a good spot! I hadn't clocked that this was a functional change, although presumably the new behaviour was what was intended originally!