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 shouldnâ€™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.Sherlockâ€™s proposed solution, which keeps things simple. Itâ€™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.