Second Red Black Tree Program

[brennandoubt]

Description of Change

I think this variation of the red black tree data structure has helpful additional documentation and naming for functions/variables to make it clearer how different parts of a red black tree's source code work. I started the program as a college homework assignment but all of the code and implementation methods are my own. I'm happy to update or fix anything with my code if needed!

Checklist

• [x] Added description of change
• [x] Added file name matches File name guidelines
• [x] Added tests and example, test must pass
• [x] Added documentation so that the program is self-explanatory and educational - Doxygen guidelines
• [x] Relevant documentation/comments is changed or added
• [x] PR title follows semantic commit guidelines
• [x] Search previous suggestions before making a new one, as yours may be a duplicate.
• [x] I acknowledge that all my contributions will be made under the project's license.

Notes:

[brennandoubt]

Thanks for the reply! I'm working on fixing the code right now. If it just said that I tried to merge my branch again, then I did that by mistake and am still working on the repo.

[brennandoubt]

I updated my branch with the updated red black tree program!

[brennandoubt]

Should I make sure all linter suggestions are added to my code? I have a couple of tests that have assert statements over 80 characters long, but I wasn't sure if it'd be preferred to just remove the longer test lines I have.

[github-actions[bot]]

This pull request has been automatically marked as abandoned because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[brennandoubt]

Hi, I posted a question on the pull request about if I need to apply all of the linter suggestions for my program, mainly for my longer code lines that hold larger data structures to test on. I wasn’t sure if I just need to remove my larger tests for my program in order to pass the linter code check or if it’s possible to leave them and apply linter’s other suggestions for cleaning up my code aside from the suggestions to shorten certain lines of code.

Is there a specific time when the pull request will be closed before any more activity occurs on it?

Thanks in advance! Brennan

Am 02.10.2022 um 02:17 schrieb github-actions[bot] @.***>:

This pull request has been automatically marked as abandoned because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/TheAlgorithms/C-Plus-Plus/pull/1968#issuecomment-1264513994, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVQX5SA73OLNEKYP752IJA3WBDIB5ANCNFSM55SJ2AAQ. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.

[Panquesito7]

Hello. It'd be great if you could fix all the linter warnings/errors. These are to ensure your code matches our guidelines. You can always reach out to us if you need any help! Feel free to join our Discord server. 🙂

[brennandoubt]

I just updated my branch with all the linter errors fixed. If there's anything else I need to do with my program, please let me know!

[brennandoubt]

Thank you! I think I forgot to update the master branch of my fork with my code last time, but I just pushed my updated code again (with the most recent suggestions you mentioned implemented).

[github-actions[bot]]

This pull request has been automatically marked as abandoned because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[brennandoubt]

Just updated the code to fix the linter errors

[brennandoubt]

Oh ok, sorry I didn't catch those. I'll work on fixing them!

[github-actions[bot]]

This pull request has been automatically marked as abandoned because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[Panquesito7]

Hey there, just checking in :) Do you need any help?

[brennandoubt]

Hi! I don't have any specific questions right now, but I noticed that many of the remaining errors involve defining additional operators and some C++ concepts I wasn't as familiar with (such as smart pointers). I've been researching how to properly add and use these in my code, and I made several changes already to fix some of the smaller errors like using a 'constexpr' instead of macros. Should I push these updates to the remote branch now, or is it better to wait until I finish updating my code to handle the rest of the errors?

[Panquesito7]

Should I push these updates to the remote branch now, or is it better to wait until I finish updating my code to handle the rest of the errors?

As you wish. 🙂

[brennandoubt]

Thank you for the comments! I just pushed some updates on documentation and comments in my code.

[brennandoubt]

Should I be concerned about the failing Doxygen and Awesome CI workflows when pushing my code? I noticed it fails the check when running cmake for windows and fetching a repository for gh-pages.

[realstealthninja]

Should I be concerned about the failing Doxygen and Awesome CI workflows when pushing my code? I noticed it fails the check when running cmake for windows and fetching a repository for gh-pages.

possibly but we'll get to it once we get to it

[brennandoubt]

I changed the note tags to details except for the notes that describe assumptions for how functions will be used in the program.

[realstealthninja]

Now all you have to do is fix the errors being caused by awesome ci. Treat them like a review! one of those include using null_ptr instead of null. Let us know if you need help with it

[brennandoubt]

Sorry for the late response, but I understand and will have time to work on fixing those errors over the rest of this week.

[realstealthninja]

Sorry for the late response, but I understand and will have time to work on fixing those errors over the rest of this week.

take your time! let us know if you need any help!

[brennandoubt]

Should I be concerned about the gh-pages step failing in the workflow? I updated my fork and think I also fixed the issue causing the windows compile check to fail.

[realstealthninja]

Should I be concerned about the gh-pages step failing in the workflow? I updated my fork and think I also fixed the issue causing the windows compile check to fail.

not at all gh-pages can only be built on the main repo

[brennandoubt]

Should I be concerned about the gh-pages step failing in the workflow? I updated my fork and think I also fixed the issue causing the windows compile check to fail.

not at all gh-pages can only be built on the main repo

Thanks! I thought so but wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something

[brennandoubt]

And if there's anything else left to do, please let me know!

[brennandoubt]

Hi, just checking again if there's anything else left to do for the RBT algorithm

[github-actions[bot]]

This pull request has been automatically marked as abandoned because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[brennandoubt]

Hi, is there anything else that needs to be done for my program?

[brennandoubt]

Any updates?