Hacktoberfest 2026: los issues que los mantenedores marcaron para octubre, abiertos y aptos para principiantes. Explorar issues de Hacktoberfest

pgtap/mincut/compare.test.sql test data is flawed

Abierto
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#2,583 3 comentarios 1 reacción 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Los mantenedores suelen responder en 2 días

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

  • #3104 de @prashsti29 — cerrado sin fusionar

Evaluación

Dificultad
3/5
Tiempo estimado
1-2 días
Aptitud para principiantes
65/100
Tipo de issue
Error
Claridad
Bien especificado
Estado de actividad
Tranquilo
Stack tecnológico
cpp, postgresql, sql
Área
databases, testing

Línea de trabajo

The issue is in the test file pgtap/mincut/compare.test.sql. First, examine the flawed test data for tests 5 and 6, understanding the graph structure and the Stoer-Wagner algorithm requirements. Review the pgr_stoerWagner function's implementation and the Boost library version impact. Create a valid test graph with non-negative costs and undirected edges, then update the test SQL with correct expected results. Run the TAP tests to verify the fix.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

bug mincut pgtap

Problem
The two functionality tests in pgtap/mincut/compare.test.sql use graphs that are either vacuous or invalid, and the expected return values are not guaranteed.

This test case would benefit from being rewritten to use a graph designed for min-cut testing, but I am raising this issue because changes to Boost can cause it to fail.

To Reproduce
Compiling the test against Boost 1.80 or later (which uses a different implementation of Stoer-Wagner than earlier versions) causes failures.

Test 5

The graph for unit test "5: Mincut of edge 17" uses a graph with two nodes and one edge. Evaluating the inner query of the PREPARE stoerWagner6 statement (the one being passed to pgr_stoerWagner()) gives the following:

 id | source | target | cost | reverse_cost 
----+--------+--------+------+--------------
 17 |     14 |     15 |    1 |            1
(1 row)

Obviously this is the exact same graph as generated by the simpler stoerWagner5 subquery; in both cases the mincut is trivially to cut the only existing edge, so the comparison of stoerWagner5 and stoerWagner6 tests only that pgr_stoerWagner generates the same output given the same input, which was probably not what was intended.

Test 6

The subquery being passed to pgr_stoerWagner7 for the test "6: Compare the mincut of subgraph with actual result" results in the following graph:

 id | source | target | cost | reverse_cost 
----+--------+--------+------+--------------
  1 |      1 |      2 |    1 |            1
  2 |      2 |      3 |   -1 |            1
  3 |      3 |      4 |   -1 |            1
  4 |      2 |      5 |    1 |            1
  5 |      3 |      6 |    1 |           -1
  6 |      7 |      8 |    1 |            1
  7 |      8 |      5 |    1 |            1
  8 |      5 |      6 |    1 |            1
  9 |      6 |      9 |    1 |            1
 10 |      5 |     10 |    1 |            1
 11 |      6 |     11 |    1 |           -1
 12 |     10 |     11 |    1 |           -1
 13 |     11 |     12 |    1 |           -1
 14 |     10 |     13 |    1 |            1
 15 |      9 |     12 |    1 |            1
 16 |      4 |      9 |    1 |            1
(16 rows)

And expects that the mincut result is to cut the single edge with id 1.

There are three flaws with this test:

  1. The Stoer-Wagner algorithm requires all edges have non-negative costs, but edges 2 and 3 violate this.
  2. The Stoer-Wagner algorithm requires an undirected graph, but edges 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, and 13 have different costs in different directions.
  3. There are four distinct edges of equal weight that, each on its own, can be removed to partition the graph: edges 1, 6, 7, and 14. (Notice that nodes 1, 7, and 13 only have a single connection to the graph, and node 8 lies between node 7 and the rest of the graph.)

The test query for 6 asserts that the algorithm will select edge 1, but 6, 7, and 14 are valid (and edge 14 is selected when built against more modern versions of Boost).

Lenguaje dominante
C++
Estrellas
1.4k
Forks
397
Merge medio
2 d 2 h
PR fusionados (30 d)
4

Preparar el entorno

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de pgRouting/pgrouting

Todos los issues de pgRouting/pgrouting

Issues similares

Más issues de C++

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.