| Anonymous | Login | 2025-12-12 03:56 CST | ![]() |
| My View | View Issues |
| View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | ||||||||||||
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update | ||||||||
| 0000305 | Rosetta | [All Projects] Bad Coding | public | 2013-09-25 13:17 | 2013-09-25 13:51 | ||||||||
| Reporter | smlewis | ||||||||||||
| Assigned To | |||||||||||||
| Priority | low | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always | ||||||||
| Status | new | Resolution | open | ||||||||||
| Platform | All platforms | OS | Any | OS Version | Any | ||||||||
| Product Version | Trunk | ||||||||||||
| Fixed in Version | |||||||||||||
| Summary | 0000305: pose.constraint_set in NULL case | ||||||||||||
| Description | pose.constrant_set(): Pose::ConstraintSetCOP Pose::constraint_set() const { if ( constraint_set_ == 0 ) { return new scoring::constraints::ConstraintSet; // create an empty constraint set } return constraint_set_; } This has the behavior of returning a VALID pointer to an empty constraint set if the Pose has no ConstraintSet...but it doesn't set the Pose to point at that same COP! So, it returns a valid ConstraintSet that isn't actually the Pose's. Is that bad behavior? | ||||||||||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||||||||||
| Application(s) Affected | pose.constraint_set() | ||||||||||||
| Command Line Used | pose.constraint_set() | ||||||||||||
| Developer Options | |||||||||||||
| Fixed in SVN Version | |||||||||||||
| Attached Files | |||||||||||||
Notes |
|
|
(0000316) smlewis (Administrator) 2013-09-25 13:51 |
It's because the "getter" is const, so it can't modify the Pose::constraint_set_. The question then is, should it be nonconst? or return NULL? or be as-is? |
Issue History |
|||
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
| 2013-09-25 13:17 | smlewis | New Issue | |
| 2013-09-25 13:51 | smlewis | Note Added: 0000316 | |
| Copyright © 2000 - 2012 MantisBT Group |