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

fix leak in extract_polygonal_prism_data #1044

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 16, 2014

Conversation

v4hn
Copy link
Contributor

@v4hn v4hn commented Dec 15, 2014

The inlier-check worked before Alexandru broke it in 2012.
(see 6149729) This last test in the
raytracing code is actually already the first one that is tested for.

The inlier-check worked before Alexandru broke it in 2012.
(see 6149729)
This last test in the raytracing code is actually already
the _first_ one that is tested for.
@v4hn
Copy link
Contributor Author

v4hn commented Dec 15, 2014

The current version of pcl produces this weird bug when asked to extract all points within the (blue) convex hull leaking convex hull of a table
The pointcloud here is a 2d-projection of a scene from which the convex table hull is extracted onto the table plane.
The two purple points mark the beginning and end point of the convex hull. The red points are all points which should be on or above the convex hull.
With this patch the correct set of inliers is computed:
correct convex hull of the same table

jspricke added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 16, 2014
fix leak in extract_polygonal_prism_data
@jspricke jspricke merged commit fea0ec1 into PointCloudLibrary:master Dec 16, 2014
@taketwo
Copy link
Member

taketwo commented Dec 16, 2014

What about these: #869 #552?

@v4hn
Copy link
Contributor Author

v4hn commented Dec 16, 2014

I agree with @gedikli in #869. There never was a problem with explicitly closed polygons,
because in the relevant loop iteration the condition 0<0 will always turn out to be false.
That's also the reason why people where able to work around this bug by using explicitly closed polygons: in this case the superfluous test in the end was not harmful anymore.
With this bugfix, implicitly as well as explicitly closed polygons are supported again and both issues you referenced can be closed.

@taketwo
Copy link
Member

taketwo commented Dec 16, 2014

@v4hn Great! Thanks for bringing this up again.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants