Archived issue #0028228
Provide possibility to keep the given edges during unification of faces in ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm
Description
There should be possibility in the ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm to avoid merging of the faces in given places, i.e. possibility to keep the given edges in the result.
Steps to reproduce
bugs modalg_6 bug28228
Public activity
59 archived notes
Participants are labeled by their role within this record.
Branch [archived branch] has been created by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Dec 22 18:55:55 2016 +0300
0028228: Provide possibility to keep the given edges during unification of faces in ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm
- Added methods "KeepShape" and "KeepShapes" for "ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain" class
- Updated "unifysamedom" command in Draw
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Dec 22 18:55:55 2016 +0300
0028228: Provide possibility to keep the given edges during unification of faces in ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm
- Added methods "KeepShape" and "KeepShapes" for "ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain" class
- Updated "unifysamedom" command in Draw
Dear Mikhail, could you please review CR28228.
src\SWDRAW\SWDRAW_ShapeUpgrade.cxx
Please correct old mistake in help of command unifysamedom: replace the option "-i" with "+i" in lines 1289 and 1587.
Update help of the command on the line 1587 with new options.
src\ShapeUpgrade\ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain.hxx
It is needed to add a bit more details in description of KeepShape method. That the shape can be vertex or edge. In case of vertex it forbids merging of connected edges. In case of edge it forbids merging of connected faces.
src\ShapeUpgrade\ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain.cxx
1118,1140: there is no need to initialize the list, as its default constructor will be called by default.
1266-1271: it is not clear why use call MapShapesAndAncestors for items of myKeepShapes. It has no sense.
I would prefer using the type TopTools_MapOfShape for the field myKeepShapes, so that it was ready by the time of calling Perform().
1371: it is better to use only one list aKeepEdges. The edges that earlier were put to the list aMultEdges are now to be put in aKeepEdges.
Please, do not consider the flag hasAllKeepEdges at all.
The block 1388-1419 must work for keep edges also.
Please correct old mistake in help of command unifysamedom: replace the option "-i" with "+i" in lines 1289 and 1587.
Update help of the command on the line 1587 with new options.
src\ShapeUpgrade\ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain.hxx
It is needed to add a bit more details in description of KeepShape method. That the shape can be vertex or edge. In case of vertex it forbids merging of connected edges. In case of edge it forbids merging of connected faces.
src\ShapeUpgrade\ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain.cxx
1118,1140: there is no need to initialize the list, as its default constructor will be called by default.
1266-1271: it is not clear why use call MapShapesAndAncestors for items of myKeepShapes. It has no sense.
I would prefer using the type TopTools_MapOfShape for the field myKeepShapes, so that it was ready by the time of calling Perform().
1371: it is better to use only one list aKeepEdges. The edges that earlier were put to the list aMultEdges are now to be put in aKeepEdges.
Please, do not consider the flag hasAllKeepEdges at all.
The block 1388-1419 must work for keep edges also.
Branch [archived branch] has been updated by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Mon Dec 26 15:23:59 2016 +0300
Remarks correction
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Mon Dec 26 15:23:59 2016 +0300
Remarks correction
Dear Mikhail, could you please review CR28228, branch is updated according to remarks
src\ShapeUpgrade\ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain.hxx
Include of TopTools_ListOfShape should be removed.
In 75, "This shapes" => "These shapes".
src\ShapeUpgrade\ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain.cxx
In 1370, remove check of myAllowInternal.
Add the same treatment for vertices, when merging of edges.
Include of TopTools_ListOfShape should be removed.
In 75, "This shapes" => "These shapes".
src\ShapeUpgrade\ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain.cxx
In 1370, remove check of myAllowInternal.
Add the same treatment for vertices, when merging of edges.
Branch [archived branch] has been created by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Dec 22 18:55:55 2016 +0300
0028228: Provide possibility to keep the given edges during unification of faces in ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm
- Added methods "KeepShape" and "KeepShapes" for "ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain" class
- Updated "unifysamedom" command in Draw
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Dec 22 18:55:55 2016 +0300
0028228: Provide possibility to keep the given edges during unification of faces in ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm
- Added methods "KeepShape" and "KeepShapes" for "ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain" class
- Updated "unifysamedom" command in Draw
Dear Mikhail, could you please review CR28228_1, branch is updated according to remarks and rebase onto current master
src\ShapeUpgrade\ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain.hxx
- Again, include of TopTools_ListOfShape should be removed.
- In 69, "These shape" => "This shape".
In test results, it seams that "result3" is not as expected. The faces left and upper right (divided by edges a_8 and a_9) must be merged, but they are not.
- Again, include of TopTools_ListOfShape should be removed.
- In 69, "These shape" => "This shape".
In test results, it seams that "result3" is not as expected. The faces left and upper right (divided by edges a_8 and a_9) must be merged, but they are not.
Branch [archived branch] has been updated by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Fri Dec 30 15:57:05 2016 +0300
Remarks correction
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Fri Dec 30 15:57:05 2016 +0300
Remarks correction
Dear Mikhail, could you please review CR28228_1
Logic of the code at lines 1397-1414 seems to be not correct. aLF.Extent() cannot be > 2, because aMapEF was build on a connected faces to be merged together. The sequence 'edges' must be updated if 'faces(i)' is to be removed.
The comment at 1379 is to be made more clear. The word 'keep' can be treated as a verb. It is not clear to which noun the word 'which' has connection.
The comment at 1379 is to be made more clear. The word 'keep' can be treated as a verb. It is not clear to which noun the word 'which' has connection.
The result2 in the test is incorrect:
unifysamedom result2 a a_3 a_9
The edges a_3 and a_9 are disappeared by merging in the result.
The result3 is incorrect. It is obvious if we explode it on faces and see them separately.
unifysamedom result2 a a_3 a_9
The edges a_3 and a_9 are disappeared by merging in the result.
The result3 is incorrect. It is obvious if we explode it on faces and see them separately.
Branch [archived branch] has been updated by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Mon Jan 9 20:26:11 2017 +0300
Additional remarks correction
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Mon Jan 9 20:26:11 2017 +0300
Additional remarks correction
Branch [archived branch] has been created by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Fri Dec 30 15:57:05 2016 +0300
Remarks correction
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Dec 22 18:55:55 2016 +0300
0028228: Provide possibility to keep the given edges during unification of faces in ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm
- Added methods "KeepShape" and "KeepShapes" for "ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain" class
- Updated "unifysamedom" command in Draw
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Fri Dec 30 15:57:05 2016 +0300
Remarks correction
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Dec 22 18:55:55 2016 +0300
0028228: Provide possibility to keep the given edges during unification of faces in ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm
- Added methods "KeepShape" and "KeepShapes" for "ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain" class
- Updated "unifysamedom" command in Draw
Dear Mikhail, could you please review CR28228_2, branch is updated according to remarks and rebase onto current master
Please correct the code as we agreed.
Branch [archived branch] has been created by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Fri Dec 30 15:57:05 2016 +0300
Remarks correction
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Dec 22 18:55:55 2016 +0300
0028228: Provide possibility to keep the given edges during unification of faces in ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm
- Added methods "KeepShape" and "KeepShapes" for "ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain" class
- Updated "unifysamedom" command in Draw
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Fri Dec 30 15:57:05 2016 +0300
Remarks correction
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Dec 22 18:55:55 2016 +0300
0028228: Provide possibility to keep the given edges during unification of faces in ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm
- Added methods "KeepShape" and "KeepShapes" for "ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain" class
- Updated "unifysamedom" command in Draw
Dear Mikhail, could you please review CR28228_3, branch is updated according to remarks and rebase onto current master
tests/bugs/modalg_6/bug28228
- Please create create a new case bug28228_1 for bug28228_face_circle.brep. Do not put all cases in one script.
src/ShapeUpgrade/ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain.cxx
- 970: use method Find instead of Seek in case if you do not check pointer for null. Is it safe to not check it in this case?
- 1092,1468,1492,1497: too long lines.
- Logic of the loop at 1497 is incorrect.
- 1504: make continue at a separate line (for easier debug) and make a comment here that we stop merging the current set of faces.
- Please create create a new case bug28228_1 for bug28228_face_circle.brep. Do not put all cases in one script.
src/ShapeUpgrade/ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain.cxx
- 970: use method Find instead of Seek in case if you do not check pointer for null. Is it safe to not check it in this case?
- 1092,1468,1492,1497: too long lines.
- Logic of the loop at 1497 is incorrect.
- 1504: make continue at a separate line (for easier debug) and make a comment here that we stop merging the current set of faces.
Branch [archived branch] has been updated by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Wed Jan 25 19:39:52 2017 +0300
Additional remarks correction
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Wed Jan 25 19:39:52 2017 +0300
Additional remarks correction
Dear Mikhail, could you please review CR28228_3, branch is updated according to remarks
tests\bugs\modalg_6\bug28228
- why did you remove the lines:
unifysamedom result a a_3 a_9 +i
checknbshapes result -face 1 -edge 12 -vertex 12
Now the variable 'result' used in the command 'checkview' is not defined.
src\ShapeUpgrade\ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain.cxx
- 970-971: not good code. The map may not contain the edge. In this case there will be exception. If it contains the edge then hardly it can be a null shape. So, the method Seek can be used to check the pointer for null before its dereference. See lines 1104-1107 for reference.
- The line 1504 can be omitted if you check that 'faces' is not empty before the line 1499. Just put all the block 1495-1517 in this condition.
- Unsafe code at 1507, you should check if aE is present in aMapEF. If some faces were removed from the set a keep edge can be not found there.
- However, it is not needed at all to clear and re-fill aMapEF. Use the same state of the map. So, the previous remark will be not relevant.
- why did you remove the lines:
unifysamedom result a a_3 a_9 +i
checknbshapes result -face 1 -edge 12 -vertex 12
Now the variable 'result' used in the command 'checkview' is not defined.
src\ShapeUpgrade\ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain.cxx
- 970-971: not good code. The map may not contain the edge. In this case there will be exception. If it contains the edge then hardly it can be a null shape. So, the method Seek can be used to check the pointer for null before its dereference. See lines 1104-1107 for reference.
- The line 1504 can be omitted if you check that 'faces' is not empty before the line 1499. Just put all the block 1495-1517 in this condition.
- Unsafe code at 1507, you should check if aE is present in aMapEF. If some faces were removed from the set a keep edge can be not found there.
- However, it is not needed at all to clear and re-fill aMapEF. Use the same state of the map. So, the previous remark will be not relevant.
Branch [archived branch] has been updated by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Jan 26 10:50:32 2017 +0300
Correction according to the last remarks
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Jan 26 10:50:32 2017 +0300
Correction according to the last remarks
Please correct according to verbal remarks.
Branch [archived branch] has been updated by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Jan 26 11:53:06 2017 +0300
Correction according to the verbal remarks
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Jan 26 11:53:06 2017 +0300
Correction according to the verbal remarks
Branch [archived branch] has been updated by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Jan 26 12:17:32 2017 +0300
Remarks were applied
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Jan 26 12:17:32 2017 +0300
Remarks were applied
Reviewed.
Branch [archived branch] has been updated forcibly by Participant.
[revision removed]
[revision removed]
Dear Commenter 1,
Branch CR28228_3 was rebased on IR-2017-01-26 of occt git-repository.
[revision removed]
Branch CR28228_3 was rebased on IR-2017-01-26 of occt git-repository.
[revision removed]
Dear Commenter 1,
Branch CR28228_3 from occt git-repository (and IR-2017-01-26 from products git-repository) was compiled on Linux, MacOS and Windows platforms and tested on Release mode.
[revision removed]
Number of compiler warnings:
occt component :
Linux: 0 (0 on master)
Windows: 0 (0 on master)
MacOS : 0 (0 on master)
products component :
Linux: 63 (63 on master)
Windows: 0 (0 on master)
MacOS : 1128
Regressions/Differences/Improvements:
http://occt-tests/CR28228_3-master-OCCT/Debian70-64/bugs/modalg_6/bug27309.html
http://occt-tests/CR28228_3-master-OCCT/Windows-64-VC10/bugs/modalg_6/bug27309.html
bugs modalg_6 bug27309: FAILED
Testing cases:
http://occt-tests/CR28228_3-master-OCCT/Debian70-64/bugs/modalg_6/bug28228.html
http://occt-tests/CR28228_3-master-OCCT/Windows-64-VC10/bugs/modalg_6/bug28228.html
bugs modalg_6 bug28228: OK
http://occt-tests/CR28228_3-master-OCCT/Debian70-64/bugs/modalg_6/bug28228_1.html
http://occt-tests/CR28228_3-master-OCCT/Windows-64-VC10/bugs/modalg_6/bug28228_1.html
bugs modalg_6 bug28228_1: OK
Testing on Linux:
occt component :
Total MEMORY difference: 92250730 / 92289033 [-0.04%]
Total CPU difference: 19963.130000000157 / 19914.070000000218 [+0.25%]
products component :
Total MEMORY difference: 31392937 / 31467714 [-0.24%]
Total CPU difference: 5634.799999999979 / 5543.51999999998 [+1.65%]
Testing on Windows:
occt component :
Total MEMORY difference: 57620720 / 57618048 [+0.00%]
Total CPU difference: 18676.236918698633 / 18683.178963198647 [-0.04%]
products component :
Total MEMORY difference: 22659012 / 22621210 [+0.17%]
Total CPU difference: 5556.97402139997 / 5570.546108399986 [-0.24%]
There are no differences in images found by testdiff.
Branch CR28228_3 from occt git-repository (and IR-2017-01-26 from products git-repository) was compiled on Linux, MacOS and Windows platforms and tested on Release mode.
[revision removed]
Number of compiler warnings:
occt component :
Linux: 0 (0 on master)
Windows: 0 (0 on master)
MacOS : 0 (0 on master)
products component :
Linux: 63 (63 on master)
Windows: 0 (0 on master)
MacOS : 1128
Regressions/Differences/Improvements:
http://occt-tests/CR28228_3-master-OCCT/Debian70-64/bugs/modalg_6/bug27309.html
http://occt-tests/CR28228_3-master-OCCT/Windows-64-VC10/bugs/modalg_6/bug27309.html
bugs modalg_6 bug27309: FAILED
Testing cases:
http://occt-tests/CR28228_3-master-OCCT/Debian70-64/bugs/modalg_6/bug28228.html
http://occt-tests/CR28228_3-master-OCCT/Windows-64-VC10/bugs/modalg_6/bug28228.html
bugs modalg_6 bug28228: OK
http://occt-tests/CR28228_3-master-OCCT/Debian70-64/bugs/modalg_6/bug28228_1.html
http://occt-tests/CR28228_3-master-OCCT/Windows-64-VC10/bugs/modalg_6/bug28228_1.html
bugs modalg_6 bug28228_1: OK
Testing on Linux:
occt component :
Total MEMORY difference: 92250730 / 92289033 [-0.04%]
Total CPU difference: 19963.130000000157 / 19914.070000000218 [+0.25%]
products component :
Total MEMORY difference: 31392937 / 31467714 [-0.24%]
Total CPU difference: 5634.799999999979 / 5543.51999999998 [+1.65%]
Testing on Windows:
occt component :
Total MEMORY difference: 57620720 / 57618048 [+0.00%]
Total CPU difference: 18676.236918698633 / 18683.178963198647 [-0.04%]
products component :
Total MEMORY difference: 22659012 / 22621210 [+0.17%]
Total CPU difference: 5556.97402139997 / 5570.546108399986 [-0.24%]
There are no differences in images found by testdiff.
Dear imn,
Branch [archived branch] has been rejected due to:
- regressions/differences/improvements
Branch [archived branch] has been rejected due to:
- regressions/differences/improvements
Branch [archived branch] has been created by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Wed Feb 8 10:48:09 2017 +0300
Fixed regressions
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Dec 22 18:55:55 2016 +0300
0028228: Provide possibility to keep the given edges during unification of faces in ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm
- Added methods "KeepShape" and "KeepShapes" for "ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain" class
- Updated "unifysamedom" command in Draw
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Wed Feb 8 10:48:09 2017 +0300
Fixed regressions
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Dec 22 18:55:55 2016 +0300
0028228: Provide possibility to keep the given edges during unification of faces in ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm
- Added methods "KeepShape" and "KeepShapes" for "ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain" class
- Updated "unifysamedom" command in Draw
Dear Mikhail, could you please review CR28228_4, branch is updated and rebase onto current master
The proposed fix makes different processing of multi-connected edges and manually given "keep" edges. I.e., if we mark the multi-connected edge as a "keep" edge, it will be kept in the result (it is correct), but there will remain not merged other faces, between which there is no 'keep' or multi-connected edges (and it is incorrect).
Please see the attached pictures, input shape and the result. The result must be the same regardless of providing the pointed edge as 'keep' or no.
I have attached the input shape for this case. Please create a new test that checks this behavior.
Branch [archived branch] has been created by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Dec 22 18:55:55 2016 +0300
0028228: Provide possibility to keep the given edges during unification of faces in ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm
- Added methods "KeepShape" and "KeepShapes" for "ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain" class
- Updated "unifysamedom" command in Draw
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Mon Feb 13 17:27:55 2017 +0300
Remarks correction
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Dec 22 18:55:55 2016 +0300
0028228: Provide possibility to keep the given edges during unification of faces in ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain algorithm
- Added methods "KeepShape" and "KeepShapes" for "ShapeUpgrade_UnifySameDomain" class
- Updated "unifysamedom" command in Draw
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Mon Feb 13 17:27:55 2017 +0300
Remarks correction
Dear Mikhail, could you please review CR28228_5, branch is updated and rebase onto current master
Now it looks OK. One remark is that the new method UpdatedMergeArea seems to do the same thing as AddOrdinaryEdges. I propose to use AddOrdinaryEdges everywhere.
Branch [archived branch] has been updated forcibly by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
[revision removed]
Dear Mikhail, could you please review CR28228_5, branch is updated
Please change behavior: if the edge is marked as 'keep' but its vertices are not marked as 'keep' then the edge can be merged with neighboring edges.
Branch [archived branch] has been updated by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Wed Feb 15 13:05:03 2017 +0300
Additional remarks correction
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Wed Feb 15 13:05:03 2017 +0300
Additional remarks correction
Dear Mikhail, could you please review CR28228_5, branch is updated
I think in the method MergeEdges we do not need to check edges for belonging to theMapKeepShape. It is because the input map NonMergVrt already contains 'keep' vertices. So, you can revert the method to its initial state, when theMapKeepShape was not in its arguments. And this will be natural, indeed, with new meaning of 'keep' edges (to use them only during merging of faces).
Branch [archived branch] has been updated by Commenter 3.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Feb 16 11:19:47 2017 +0300
Removed redundant checks
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: Commenter 3
Date: Thu Feb 16 11:19:47 2017 +0300
Removed redundant checks
Dear Mikhail, could you please review CR28228_5, branch is updated
Reviewed.
Dear Commenter 1,
Branch CR28228_5 from occt git-repository (and master from products git-repository) was compiled on Linux, MacOS and Windows platforms and tested on Release mode.
[revision removed]
Number of compiler warnings:
occt component :
Linux: 0 (0 on master)
Windows: 0 (0 on master)
MacOS : 0 (0 on master)
products component :
Linux: 64 (64 on master)
Windows: 0 (0 on master)
MacOS : 1195
Regressions/Differences/Improvements:
No regressions/differences
Testing cases:
http://occt-tests/CR28228_5-master-OCCT/Debian70-64/heal/unify_same_domain/A1.html
http://occt-tests/CR28228_5-master-OCCT/Windows-64-VC10/heal/unify_same_domain/A1.html
heal unify_same_domain A1: OK
http://occt-tests/CR28228_5-master-OCCT/Debian70-64/heal/unify_same_domain/A2.html
http://occt-tests/CR28228_5-master-OCCT/Windows-64-VC10/heal/unify_same_domain/A2.html
heal unify_same_domain A2: OK
http://occt-tests/CR28228_5-master-OCCT/Debian70-64/heal/unify_same_domain/A3.html
http://occt-tests/CR28228_5-master-OCCT/Windows-64-VC10/heal/unify_same_domain/A3.html
heal unify_same_domain A3: OK
Testing on Linux:
occt component :
Total MEMORY difference: 92379239 / 93203130 [-0.88%]
Total CPU difference: 19817.920000000104 / 19801.520000000215 [+0.08%]
products component :
Total MEMORY difference: 30908929 / 31027507 [-0.38%]
Total CPU difference: 5490.619999999983 / 5509.529999999978 [-0.34%]
Testing on Windows:
occt component :
Total MEMORY difference: 57832431 / 57829936 [+0.00%]
Total CPU difference: 18587.612750598575 / 18793.846072598604 [-1.10%]
products component :
Total MEMORY difference: 22194874 / 22156738 [+0.17%]
Total CPU difference: 5507.740105799972 / 5447.523719799975 [+1.11%]
There are following differences in images found by testdiff.
Branch CR28228_5 from occt git-repository (and master from products git-repository) was compiled on Linux, MacOS and Windows platforms and tested on Release mode.
[revision removed]
Number of compiler warnings:
occt component :
Linux: 0 (0 on master)
Windows: 0 (0 on master)
MacOS : 0 (0 on master)
products component :
Linux: 64 (64 on master)
Windows: 0 (0 on master)
MacOS : 1195
Regressions/Differences/Improvements:
No regressions/differences
Testing cases:
http://occt-tests/CR28228_5-master-OCCT/Debian70-64/heal/unify_same_domain/A1.html
http://occt-tests/CR28228_5-master-OCCT/Windows-64-VC10/heal/unify_same_domain/A1.html
heal unify_same_domain A1: OK
http://occt-tests/CR28228_5-master-OCCT/Debian70-64/heal/unify_same_domain/A2.html
http://occt-tests/CR28228_5-master-OCCT/Windows-64-VC10/heal/unify_same_domain/A2.html
heal unify_same_domain A2: OK
http://occt-tests/CR28228_5-master-OCCT/Debian70-64/heal/unify_same_domain/A3.html
http://occt-tests/CR28228_5-master-OCCT/Windows-64-VC10/heal/unify_same_domain/A3.html
heal unify_same_domain A3: OK
Testing on Linux:
occt component :
Total MEMORY difference: 92379239 / 93203130 [-0.88%]
Total CPU difference: 19817.920000000104 / 19801.520000000215 [+0.08%]
products component :
Total MEMORY difference: 30908929 / 31027507 [-0.38%]
Total CPU difference: 5490.619999999983 / 5509.529999999978 [-0.34%]
Testing on Windows:
occt component :
Total MEMORY difference: 57832431 / 57829936 [+0.00%]
Total CPU difference: 18587.612750598575 / 18793.846072598604 [-1.10%]
products component :
Total MEMORY difference: 22194874 / 22156738 [+0.17%]
Total CPU difference: 5507.740105799972 / 5447.523719799975 [+1.11%]
There are following differences in images found by testdiff.
Dear Commenter 1,
Branch CR28228_5 is TESTED.
Branch CR28228_5 is TESTED.
Branch [archived branch] has been created by Participant.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: msv
Date: Thu Mar 2 12:47:37 2017 +0300
// Compilation warning is gone.
[revision removed]
Detailed log of new commits:
Author: msv
Date: Thu Mar 2 12:47:37 2017 +0300
// Compilation warning is gone.
Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Participant.
[revision removed]
[revision removed]
Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Participant.
[revision removed]
[revision removed]
Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Participant.
[revision removed]
[revision removed]
Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Participant.
[revision removed]
[revision removed]
Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Participant.
[revision removed]
[revision removed]
Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Participant.
[revision removed]
[revision removed]
Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Participant.
[revision removed]
[revision removed]
Related records