Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Bug]: Incorrect path returned by bidirectional_search in algorithms/bidirectional_bfs.py #465

Closed
4 tasks done
Panda8Bamboo opened this issue Nov 11, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed
4 tasks done

Comments

@Panda8Bamboo
Copy link
Contributor

Panda8Bamboo commented Nov 11, 2024

Is there an existing issue for this?

  • I have searched the existing issues

What happened?

Description:
Currently the def bidirectional_search in algorithms/bidirectional_bfs.py does not return correct (i.e. shortest) path from start to target. The code itself runs but produces an incorrect result, pointing to an issue in the implementation of the algorithm itself.

Steps to Reproduce:
Step 1: Navigate to Tests/algorithms/test_bidirectional_bfs.py
Step 2: Run def test_path
Step 3: Notice test fails as expected output (path) does not match actual path.

Expected Behavior:
The test_path test should not fail and the shortest path should be returned.

Actual Behavior:
The test_path test fails as the expected vs actual outputs do not match.

Suggestion to fix:
My suggestion is re-implement the code bidirectional search with an earlier version that I wrote (PR: #322 ). The code passed the test_path test, returning the shortest path. Since then a new pull request was made ( #431 ) that broke the code.

Add ScreenShots

Current test_path test behaviour:
proof_tst_fail

What browsers are you seeing the problem on?

No response

Record

  • I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct
  • I want to work on this issue
  • I'm willing to provide further clarification or assistance if needed.

Full Name

Amber

Participant Role

GSOC

Copy link
Contributor

🙌 Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention! We appreciate your input and will investigate it as soon as possible.

Feel free to join our community on Discord to discuss more!

Copy link
Contributor

✅ This issue has been closed. Thank you for your contribution! If you have any further questions or issues, feel free to join our community on Discord to discuss more!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants