1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
use crate::RegulatoryGraph;
/// To consider two regulatory graphs equivalent, we generally assume that they have the same
/// number of variables, with the same names, and stored in the same order. Furthermore, they
/// also need to have the same regulations, however, these do not have a specific order that
/// needs to be preserved. The reason why we enforce variable order and not regulation order
/// is that `VariableId` objects should be compatible across equivalent graphs, but there is no
/// `RegulationId` or a similar requirement.
impl PartialEq for RegulatoryGraph {
fn eq(&self, other: &Self) -> bool {
if self.variables != other.variables {
return false;
}
// Check that every regulation present in `self` is equivalent in `other`.
for self_reg in self.regulations() {
if let Some(other_reg) = other.find_regulation(self_reg.regulator, self_reg.target) {
if self_reg != other_reg {
return false;
}
} else {
return false;
}
}
// And symmetrically that every regulation in `other` is equivalent in `self`.
for other_reg in other.regulations() {
if let Some(self_reg) = self.find_regulation(other_reg.regulator, other_reg.target) {
if self_reg != other_reg {
return false;
}
} else {
return false;
}
}
true
}
}
impl Eq for RegulatoryGraph {}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use crate::RegulatoryGraph;
#[test]
fn test_regulation_order_equivalence() {
let mut a = RegulatoryGraph::new(vec!["a".to_string(), "b".to_string()]);
let mut b = RegulatoryGraph::new(vec!["a".to_string(), "b".to_string()]);
a.add_string_regulation("a -> b").unwrap();
a.add_string_regulation("b -| a").unwrap();
b.add_string_regulation("b -| a").unwrap();
b.add_string_regulation("a -> b").unwrap();
assert_eq!(a, b);
}
}