-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 198
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
Panic in BooleanOps::union for Polygon<f32> #1103
Comments
@RobWalt Could you add this to your draft Bool ops PR as a test case? |
I get lots of panics with
What I'm doing is that I'm trying to turn a triangle mesh into a MultiPolygon by calling I'm using I think turning If I understand correctly, the first one was closed because the same author opened another PR with a different idea. But since that didn't pan out (?), why not reopen the first one? The panics are easy to hit and it'd be so much better if we could recover from errors. EDIT: I've notice that there's also a Stitch PR and Spade Boolops PR |
Yeah I thought so as well. The main problem with the current implementation, panicking implementation of boolops is, that it relies on an implementation of I'm still working on the alternative implementation of boolops which should work without panics but it'll still take a while since we're currently still stuck reviewing the stitch PR. |
Hmm.. but even if we those parts that depend on
and this
.. returned Errors or Options instead? Btw, I switched to |
Oh I just noticed I didn't press send here. Sorry for the wait. Indeed I did try out to use errors in every scenario possible before. The thing is that during testing it didn't really make a difference since the panic in the |
I believe this is a dupe of #913 That issue is still open - but let's try to focus any future discussion on this bug there. Note there may be other bugs with the boolean operations - this one in particular is about the "assembly segments must be eulierian", which I believe is caused by a collapse of floating point precision. Feel free to re-open if I'm mistaken and this represents a different bug. |
When I executed the following code, a panic occurred. I believe it is related to issue #976; however, a different error message was displayed, saying
assembly segments must be eulierian
. What does "segments are eulerian" mean?(by the way, there seems to be a typo in this error message).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: