Add ability to ignore some positions in the triangulation

[JimmyCushnie]

As per our discussion on my fork, I am opening a PR for this feature.

When creating a new triangulation job, you can now optionally pass a NativeArray<bool> called IgnorePositions. This array should be the same length as the Positions array. Any indices in Positions that are true in IgnorePositions will not be used in the triangulation.

I'm using this to regenerate the triangles of a mesh using a subset of its vertices without needing to update the mesh's vertices.

Things to address before merging:

• [ ] Code review
• [ ] Benchmark to make sure there's no significant performance regression
• [ ] Input validation: if IgnorePositions is created, should we validate that it's the same length as Positions?
• [ ] Add documentation

Thank you @andywiecko for making this excellent library, for encouraging me to contribute, and for your generous help with this code.

[andywiecko]

Hi @JimmyCushnie,

Many thanks for your contribution to the project! I'm glad to see the community around the project is growing!

---

As you mentioned in the PR, there are some issues to resolve:

• [ ] We need to add additional input validation:
  • if Positions.Length == IgnoredPositions.Length;
  • Ensure that all constraint inputs do not contain points that are ignored.
• [ ] Add unit tests:
  • To test the new feature;
  • To check for validation errors;
  • Ensure that other features work correctly with ignored points.
• [ ] Regarding documentation, you can add a markdown page at Documentation~/manual/advanced/input-ignore-positions.md. However, this can be done later in a separate PR (but I think that tests should be included here).

Best, Andrzej

[andywiecko]

The project use conventional commits, before merging, cleanup all messages, e.g.

feat: add ignore positions input

When creating a new triangulation job, you can now optionally pass a `NativeArray<bool>` called `IgnorePositions`. This array should be the same length as the `Input.Positions` array. Any indexes that are `true` it `IngorePositions` will not be used in the triangulation.

Example use case: regenerate a mesh's triangles but only use a subset of its vertices, without having to change the mesh's vertices array.

[andywiecko]

Regarding the failing CI, I'll need to update the repository's secrets and workflows to enable secrets for forks. I'm hoping to find time for it over the weekend.

[andywiecko]

Regarding the failing CI, I'll need to update the repository's secrets and workflows to enable secrets for forks. I'm hoping to find time for it over the weekend.

@JimmyCushnie I've just rebased your PR to verify this. I've set up CI, and now tests run for forks :)

Best, Andrzej

[HalfVoxel]

Nice PR. But I question why this PR is necessary? Can't the input be a deferred array that you fill with only the positions you want to triangulate? It seems somewhat out of scope for this library to handle ignoring arbitrary points. Furthermore, it adds indirect lookups in several locations, which has the potential to reduce performance for the common case.

[andywiecko]

Hi @HalfVoxel,

Nice PR. But I question why this PR is necessary? Can't the input be a deferred array that you fill with only the positions you want to triangulate? It seems somewhat out of scope for this library to handle ignoring arbitrary points. Furthermore, it adds indirect lookups in several locations, which has the potential to reduce performance for the common case.

I believe this could be useful in certain scenarios, as mentioned in the PR message. @JimmyCushnie says:

I'm using this to regenerate the triangles of a mesh using a subset of its vertices without needing to update the mesh's vertices.

Certainly, one could utilize a deferred array, but this additional "mask" enables triangulation without the need for data preprocessing and postprocessing. Regarding performance I think it should not influence the performance when IgnoredPositions = default, particularly when my suggestion will be applied in the implementation.

Additionally, I think this bool mask is really cheap operation when provided.

Best, Andrzej

[JimmyCushnie]

@HalfVoxel to add on to what Andrzej said, I'm using this to triangulate dozens of high-vertex-count meshes per second, and my project targets low-end mobile devices. The solution you describe would be too much performance overhead for my use case, not to mention it would significantly complicate my code compared to what I can do with this PR.

Just for clarity, the main benefit of this feature for me is that the indices of the positions do not change when some of the indices are ignored. Positions[3] will always be the same position, whether we're ignoring Positions[2] during this triangulation or not. For meshes that are frequently re-triangulated this is very useful.

I acknowledge it's a pretty niche feature, but if we can do it without compromising performance on the common case I don't see why not to do it.

[HalfVoxel]

I very much doubt that a job to do the filtering before the triangulation would have any significant performance impact.

Something like this should do the trick, I think (written without any testing)

[BurstCompile]
struct FilterPositions : IJob {
    public NativeArray<float2> inputPositions;
    public NativeList<float2> outputPositions;
    public NativeList<int> outputIndices;
    public NativeArray<bool> ignorePositions;
    public void Execute() {
        int k = 0;
        outputPositions.Resize(inputPositions.Length, NativeArrayOptions.UninitializedMemory);
        outputIndices.Resize(inputPositions.Length, NativeArrayOptions.UninitializedMemory);
        for (int i = 0; i < inputPositions.Length; i++) {
            if (!ignorePositions[i]) {
                 outputIndices[k] = i;
                 outputPositions[k] = inputPositions[i];
                 k++;
             }
        }
        outputPositions.Length = k;
        outputIndices.Length = k;
        }
    }
}

Then you just feed the outputPositions to the triangulator as a deferred NativeArray.

I know full well how easily a library can end up with special cases for tons of niche use cases, so I just want to suggest an alternative that I think will perform just as well.

[HalfVoxel]

Also. As it is right now, the optional pre-processor in this package will still try to handle all points in the input. The input validation code will also not ignore them. This could be a problem if a user (reasonably) expects the points to be completely ignored, and fills the supposedly ignored points with garbage data (like NaNs, infinities, or just very large coordinates).

It's not trivial to make the pre-processor just ignore them, as there's also some post-processing code to transform positions, that would need to be updated.

[andywiecko]

@HalfVoxel, @JimmyCushnie

Also. As it is right now, the optional pre-processor in this package will still try to handle all points in the input. The input validation code will also not ignore them. This could be a problem if a user (reasonably) expects the points to be completely ignored, and fills the supposedly ignored points with garbage data (like NaNs, infinities, or just very large coordinates).

It's not trivial to make the pre-processor just ignore them, as there's also some post-processing code to transform positions, that would need to be updated.

Thanks, @HalfVoxel, for mentioning preprocessors! I forgot about them! 👍

I know full well how easily a library can end up with special cases for tons of niche use cases, so I just want to suggest an alternative that I think will perform just as well.

I agree, and I think that this feature should be introduced on the "path of least resistance." This feature should be targeted at advanced users who would benefit from it. However, users who want to use it are probably not interested in preprocessors (or if they are, they should preprocess on their own, including ignoring positions). In my opinion, the best way to introduce it is with support only for Preprocessor.None. If the user selects a different preprocessor, then the Triangulator should throw a "not supported" exception and set the status to error. We should definitely mention this in the documentation as well, including alternatives. Specifically, we should note that it is preferred for the user to preprocess input on their own.

---

Elaborating on my previous comment, the validation for this feature should include:

• if Positions.Length == IgnoredPositions.Length;
• Ensure that all constraint inputs do not contain points that are ignored;
• If buffer is provided, validate only not ignored positions in position validation.

[andywiecko]

Hi @JimmyCushnie,

How's it going? I've recently made huge progress with the package and made v3 release! Any progress related to the contribution? If you have any questions or require assistance, let me know.

Best, Andrzej