mirror of
https://github.com/OrcaSlicer/OrcaSlicer.git
synced 2026-09-18 14:32:36 +00:00
Tommaso Bianchi
b9d6b59f90
Driving the control socket: hexagon prism, six vertical fillets, four chamfers on the already-filleted rim, an M8 hole. Afterwards describe_scene reported bodies=3 and error='' — entirely healthy — while body 2's TopoDS_Shape was null. Only mass_properties on that one body revealed anything was wrong. So a feature destroyed a body, recompute() returned true, and the document went on advertising it. Any downstream consumer — slicing, STEP export, a mass properties report — met a null shape with no warning. That is the silent corruption class, which is the one class this project does not tolerate. recompute() now scans the freshly built bodies for a null shape, names the body and the feature that destroyed it, and returns false. Returning false rather than just setting error is the point: it hands the caller its normal rollback path, so the operation that destroyed the body is undone instead of committed. The message says "an unidentified feature" when source_feature is -1. "feature 0" would be a lie, and a message that exists to tell you where to look has to be trusted. TEST IS A POSITIVE CONTRACT, AND THE REASON MATTERS. The reported order was driven headlessly first, as the better test: it does NOT reproduce. The dress-up step throws "fillet radius too large", which is an already-loud already-caught path, so recompute fails honestly and never nulls a body. No public-API sequence found so far reaches the guard's branch without a GUI, and faking a null into `bodies` after the fact would not exercise it — the guard runs on `built`, before the swap. So the test asserts what can be asserted: a box + fillet recomputes true, error is empty, and no body is null. The guard's own branch is defensive and currently unexercised; that is stated here rather than implied by a green suite. Kernel suite: 2217 assertions in 161 test cases, all passing. No existing test relied on a null body surviving a recompute, so hardening this broke nothing. snaporca-5425 (part a). Part b — why the chamfer chain degenerates on an already-filleted rim — is untouched and stays open.
OrcaSlicer tests
Building, running and writing tests is documented on the wiki, under How to Test.
Two files here rather than there, because coding agents only read what is in the repository: