Closed svenemtell closed 1 year ago
Thanks. I think it's probably cleaner for the for loops to be written as for (int i = channelNumbers.getStart(); i < channelNumbers.getEnd(); ++i)
As that more clearly maps on to the inclusive start/exclusive end?
Sounds good! I fixed the loops (but left the assertions) and updated the headline of the PR.
Should be fixed here now: https://github.com/Tracktion/tracktion_engine/commit/ac5fa7ce9cf19807ea12b3a89d36ce7706f90b64
3 files ±0 3 suites ±0 0s :stopwatch: ±0s 169 tests ±0 169 :heavy_check_mark: ±0 0 :zzz: ±0 0 :x: ±0 6 186 runs ±0 6 186 :heavy_check_mark: ±0 0 :zzz: ±0 0 :x: ±0
Results for commit ac5fa7ce. ± Comparison against base commit 447a5d54.
0 files ±0 0 suites ±0 0s :stopwatch: ±0s 0 tests ±0 0 :heavy_check_mark: ±0 0 :zzz: ±0 0 :x: ±0
Results for commit ac5fa7ce. ± Comparison against base commit 447a5d54.
See discussion here: [MidiNode channelNumbers range?]