Skip to content

Refactor collections nodes#562

Merged
arcondello merged 1 commit into
dwavesystems:mainfrom
arcondello:feature/decision-nodes-refresh
Jun 12, 2026
Merged

Refactor collections nodes#562
arcondello merged 1 commit into
dwavesystems:mainfrom
arcondello:feature/decision-nodes-refresh

Conversation

@arcondello

@arcondello arcondello commented Jun 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

No functional changes.

Refactors to our decision collections (edit, de-scoping, can make another PR for other decisions) nodes to bring them more in line with our current standards (e.g., #399, #398, alphabetizing methods, better use of private attributes, etc).

AI Generation Disclosure

No AI used. Though honestly it probably would have been useful.

No functional change, just moving things around and minor renaming.
@arcondello arcondello added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 5, 2026
@arcondello arcondello changed the title Refactor collection nodes Refactor decision nodes Jun 5, 2026
@arcondello arcondello changed the title Refactor decision nodes Refactor collections nodes Jun 9, 2026
@arcondello arcondello marked this pull request as ready for review June 9, 2026 16:22
@arcondello arcondello requested a review from wbernoudy June 9, 2026 16:22
return data_ptr<DisjointBitSetsNodeData_>(state)->get_containing_set_index(element);
}

DisjointBitSetNode::DisjointBitSetNode(DisjointBitSetsNode* disjoint_bit_sets_node) :

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be at the top of the DisjointBitSetNode section?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes it should, good catch.

@arcondello arcondello Jun 11, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh wait, it is. DisjointBitSetsNode (plural) vs DisjointBitSetNode (singular).

Though I suppose we should change the order of nodes for the singular to be above the plural in both cases. Edit: I think I'll leave it as-is. While they are out of lexicographic order, this way we don't need to do a forward declaration and IMO this is an example where the exception is helpful rather than harmful. Also also, hopefully these nodes are going away.

@arcondello

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@wbernoudy tells me he approves

@arcondello arcondello merged commit 121cd37 into dwavesystems:main Jun 12, 2026
14 checks passed
@arcondello arcondello deleted the feature/decision-nodes-refresh branch June 12, 2026 21:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants