refactor: simplify track selection logic in AlignmentAlgorithm #3934
Conversation
WalkthroughChange made, yes. In Changes
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
Examples/Algorithms/Alignment/src/AlignmentAlgorithm.cpp (1)
60-62: Simplified the track selection logic is, hmmmm. Good this change is!More elegant solution with
std::minyou have created. Clear intention it shows, safer bounds checking it provides. The Force is strong with this refactoring, yes.Consider this small improvement, you might:
- if (m_cfg.maxNumTracks > 0) { - numTracksUsed = - std::min(static_cast<std::size_t>(m_cfg.maxNumTracks), numTracksUsed); + if (m_cfg.maxNumTracks > 0) { + numTracksUsed = std::min<std::size_t>(m_cfg.maxNumTracks, numTracksUsed);Template argument deduction, clearer it makes. Less casting, better readability it brings, hmmmm.
|
Summary by CodeRabbit