Re: [sumo-user] Meaning of lane link length

[Daniel K. <d.k...@go...>]

Hello Björn,

sorry for answering late. It seems you are right, a bug report would be very
nice.

sincerely,
Daniel

2010/3/30 Björn Hendriks <hen...@ib...>

>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> thanks for your answer.
>
> On Monday 29 March 2010 15:11:20 wrote Daniel Krajzewicz:
> > Just because of currently refactoring the code: I am not sure whether
> this
> > really aplies to the current SVN state. Sorry.
>
> I just had a detailed look into the code (still at revision 8508) and this
> is
> what I found out. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> The code for vehicles passing into the subsequent lanes seems to be in
> MSVehicle::moveFirstChecked after comment "// move on lane(s)" (line 918)
> in
> the else-block of "if (myState.myPos<=myLane->getLength())" (line 923).
> There
> only MSLane::getLength but no MSLink::getLength seems to be used.
>
> (BTW, the initialization of driven in line 927 with the ?-operator seems to
> be
> always the first alternative of the ?-operator due to the preceding if.)
>
> According to my IDE (KDevelop4) the only place where MSLink::getLength
> seems
> to be used (beside value retrieval of TraCI) is in
> MSRoute::getDistanceBetween
> if HAVE_INTERNAL_LANES is set which is the case in my installation (I only
> deactivated internal lanes with option no-internal-links of netconvert).
>
> The result of MSRoute::getDistanceBetween is only used in
> MSVehicle::getDistanceToPosition which is only used in
> TraCIServer::handleVehicleDomain in case DOMVAR_DRIVINGDISTANCE (line 2288)
> which seems to compute the result of TraCI scenario command, domain
> vehicle,
> variable driving distance.
>
> So my conclusion is that those link lengths have currently (revision 8508
> as
> mentioned) no meaning for the simulation but are wrongly added to the
> driving
> distance of the respective scenario command of TraCI if compiled with
> HAVE_INTERNAL_LANES.
>
> Should I write a bug report or am I wrong?
>
> Regards
> Björn
>
> P.S.: Updating to revision 8536 and comparing with the analyzed revision
> shows
> no relevant changes.
>
>