Separate pri_label_hash and alt_label_hash make sense so we can get Note: deprecated route name in userlogs.
(Although, a single std::unordered_map<std::string,std::pair<Route*,bool>> with the bool distinguishing primary/alt might do the trick.)
But there's no such notification for AltLabels.
Could one hash should be sufficient?
Seems so, quickly looking at route_integrity.cpp & mark_*_route_segments.cpp.
Should be able to greatly simplify the insertion process in route_integrity.
Thought experiment: What happen{s,ed} with duplicate labels 1 pri + 1 alt, WRT the "unused" set & everything else...
Separate
pri_label_hashandalt_label_hashmake sense so we can getNote: deprecated route namein userlogs.(Although, a single
std::unordered_map<std::string,std::pair<Route*,bool>>with the bool distinguishing primary/alt might do the trick.)But there's no such notification for AltLabels.
Could one hash should be sufficient?
Seems so, quickly looking at route_integrity.cpp & mark_*_route_segments.cpp.
Should be able to greatly simplify the insertion process in
route_integrity.Thought experiment: What happen{s,ed} with duplicate labels 1 pri + 1 alt, WRT the "unused" set & everything else...