Refactor the abstract class CreateConnectedElementI #1047
Conversation
This file contains 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
…riant In the current implementation of the CPACS Creator, the Wing and Fuselage class are inherited from an abstract class. We want to avoid this behaviour and fix the code style by removing this class and adding a new std::variant type instead. In the actual code, it is then decided whether the current object is of type Wing or Fuselage and the respective member function is called.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## cpacs_creator_dev_merge #1047 +/- ##
========================================================
Coverage 71.40% 71.40%
========================================================
Files 312 312
Lines 28978 28976 -2
========================================================
Hits 20691 20691
+ Misses 8287 8285 -2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
joergbrech
requested changes
Jan 2, 2025
…ng the right type
joergbrech
requested changes
Jan 16, 2025
|
|
||
| private: | ||
| Ui::ModificatorSectionsWidget* ui; | ||
| tigl::CreateConnectedElementI* createConnectedElementI; | ||
| Ui::ElementModificatorInterface* createConnectedElement; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe with the current changes, we should store by value here. The ElementModificatorInterface goes out of scope at the end of the function where it is created and the pointer can be dangling. In addition, the ElementModificatorInterface already stores the fuselage or wing by reference.
| @@ -42,11 +77,11 @@ public slots: | |||
| explicit ModificatorSectionsWidget(QWidget* parent = nullptr); | |||
| ~ModificatorSectionsWidget(); | |||
|
|
|||
| void setCreateConnectedElementI(tigl::CreateConnectedElementI& elementI); | |||
| void setCreateConnectedElement(Ui::ElementModificatorInterface& element); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can't the argument be const?
Suggested change
| void setCreateConnectedElement(Ui::ElementModificatorInterface& element); | |
| void setCreateConnectedElement(Ui::ElementModificatorInterface const& element); |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Description
In the current implementation of the CPACS Creator, the Wing and Fuselage class are inherited from an abstract class (cf. #1042). We want to avoid this behaviour and fix the code style by removing this class and adding a new
std::varianttype instead. In the actual code, it is then decided whether the current object is of type Wing or Fuselage and the respective member function is called.Later on, the variant type can be extended by any other class (such as Duct, Pylon, Tank, ...), if the CPACS Creator should be able to add CPACS elements/sections within the according object.
The general procedure (and whether this is the best way) of course still can be discussed. Nonetheless, @joergbrech and I had a disscussion about it and agreed that using
std::variantseems to be a good way to solve this code style issue.Fix #1042