-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 114
catch for vector parallel to normal in angle_vectors_projected
#1462
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
Open
obucklin
wants to merge
7
commits into
compas-dev:main
Choose a base branch
from
obucklin:fix_angle_vectors_projected
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+4
−0
Open
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2c0e481
Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/obucklin/compas
obucklin 30f7d0e
Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/compas-dev/compas
obucklin 5b10b45
added catch for vector parallel to normal
obucklin 1af2b03
Changelog
obucklin b75d2d7
changed to raise ValueEror
obucklin 6970beb
Merge branch 'main' of https://github.com/compas-dev/compas
obucklin 0597af4
Merge branch 'main' into fix_angle_vectors_projected
obucklin 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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
mmh just a thought here, I'm not sure this is a bug in this particular function. like if you pass
uorvsuch that one or both of them are parallel tonormalthe angle betweenuandvprojected on the plane IS in-fact0, right?from an API perspective (well mine ;) we'd be forcing
angle_vectors_projectedhere to communicate to us something it's not necessarily concerned with.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.
of course if projecting
vonto plane with normalvis mathematically undefined then I'd perhaps raiseValueErrorhere rather than returnNone, for explicity's sakeThere 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.
i agree with @chenkasirer
the angle between two vectors can't be
None.the function should either return a float or throw an error.
and it should only throw an error if the angle cannot be computed form the input data, not because the result value is "inconvenient" :)
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.
if the project onto the plane of one of the two vectors is a vector of zero length, then the angle wrt that plane is indeed 0 in my opinion
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.
returning 0 when one of the vectors is zero-length is more of a convention, right? since in strict math terms the angle is undefined (division by zero)
this is more an argument for throwing an error, unless it's a common convention that i am just not familiar with?
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.
I'm no mathematician but according to the discussion here the angle between a vector and a zero vector is indeed undefined, as @papachap said. unfortunately no linear algebra books around me but if this is correct then i guess it supports raising an error, which should maybe done here?:
compas/src/compas/geometry/_core/angles.py
Lines 47 to 49 in ba669cb
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.
To me, returning 0 is clearrly incorrect, as that is a valid float indicating parallel vectors. From the comments, it seems raising a
ValueErrorseems to be the way to go.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.
could you perhaps post a snippet in which this specific case would be triggered, and how it is ideally handled? would you indeed expect the code to stop, and add an error catching block to handle this?
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.
this is the current usage:
I would go ahead and change this to:
I don't expect any particular behavior, other than it should not return
0. I could imagine that being mathematically undefined, as stated by @papachap, could equate to returning aNone. However it seems that raising an error is preferred. I will go ahead and make that change for y'all's consideration.