Fix floating point errors calculating keyframe end progress#2588
Merged
Fix floating point errors calculating keyframe end progress#2588
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This fixed a really tricky bug that led to the wrong keyframe being used due to a floating point rounding error.
Given specific composition start frames and the existing floating point rounding, you could wind up with the following situation:
The Keyframe.containsProgress check intentionally leaves the upper end of the range open to make it unambiguous that the progress on the boundary of two keyframes should use the latter one.
However, due to this floating point error, there was a gap and if the progress == the endProgress of the first keyframe, it wouldn't match either.
I was able to reconstruct this specific scenario with a unit test and confirmed that this fixed it. However, it is not impossible that there are other scenarios in which this could happen. However, I would rather avoid allocating doubles for everything which is more expensive unless we find a specific repro again