I find that the maximum interval
is applied after fuzz_bounds
. So if the original interval is longer than maximum interval
, the fuzz intervals will be longer than maximum interval
, too. The current implementation will clamp the fuzz lntervals with maximum interval
, so they will be equal to maximum interval
. Should we apply maximum interval
to the original interval before fuzz?
I think that intervals shouldn’t exceed max. interval. So the following inequality:
(interval + fuzz) <= max. interval
should always hold.
What about the (interval - fuzz)? For example, the original interval is 900 day and the (lower, upper) is (850, 950). If the max. interval is 365, the result from current method is (365, 365). I think (347, 365) would be better.
I agree that (347, 365) would be better. So I suppose we need some sort of asymmetric clamping.
I think the implementation is very simple. Just add an extra line to clamp the interval before fuzz_bounds. @dae, what do you think of?
I agree with @Expertium that the interval should never exceed the maximum, and agree with @L.M.Sherlock’s proposed solution, which keeps things simple. It’s a bit of a corner case already, and having half the normal fuzz is fine I think.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.