Layouts placed exactly at the part spacing can land ~1e-4 short once
rotated, rounded (e.g. PEP's 4-decimal exports) and snapped to the
Clipper grid, so both validators rejected layouts that were correct in
practice. NestTolerances.SpacingSlack (0.0005, far below anything a
cutting machine resolves) is now subtracted from the spacing by
NestLayoutCheck's inflation and NestJobPlacementValidator's edge-distance
check. The frozen LegacyNestValidator takes the same rule so the
equivalence tests keep comparing like with like.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The seed came from string.GetHashCode, which .NET randomizes per process,
so each run drew different samples and the "ring" case occasionally drew
fewer than six rejections and failed its coverage assertion (1 in 6 runs),
even though every validator decision matched the brute-force reference.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The candidate validator flattened every arc into 1000 segments and rebuilt
both parts' polygons and edge lists for every pair it compared, so spacing
checks on filleted parts cost millions of edge pairs each. Validation, not
the fill pipeline, was nearly all of a solve's wall time.
Placed contours are now flattened once with ToPolygonWithTolerance(0.001),
the tolerance the benchmark NestValidator and Part.Intersects already use,
and each part's shape is built once per candidate. Arcs stay inscribed, so
a layout placed exactly at the spacing still passes.
12-nest PEP corpus, Default + StockLadder, --parallel 1: 2820 s -> 227 s.
Every run that finished before gives the same validity, count, plates and
cost. Three StockLadder runs that used to hit the 5-minute timeout now
finish.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ajandClaude Opus 5.5