feat(datastructures, binary-tree): zig zag level order traversal#103
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughA new public method Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant BinaryTree
participant Queue
participant Result
Client->>BinaryTree: zig_zag_level_order()
activate BinaryTree
BinaryTree->>Queue: enqueue(root) if root exists
loop per level
BinaryTree->>Queue: dequeue all nodes at current level
BinaryTree->>BinaryTree: collect node list for level
alt odd level
BinaryTree->>Result: append reversed node list
else even level
BinaryTree->>Result: append node list as-is
end
BinaryTree->>Queue: enqueue children of current level
end
BinaryTree-->>Client: return Result (List[List[BinaryTreeNode]])
deactivate BinaryTree
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
datastructures/trees/binary/tree/__init__.py (1)
653-653: Consider tightening the type annotation.The type annotation allows
Nonefor theBinaryTreeNode, but in practice, the first element of tuples in the stack is neverNonebecause:
- The initial element is
self.root, which is guaranteed non-Noneby the guard on line 649- All subsequent appends (lines 659, 661, 664, 666, 670, 672) check that
node.leftornode.rightis notNonebefore appendingConsider applying this diff to tighten the type:
- stack: List[Tuple[BinaryTreeNode | None, int, str | None]] = [(self.root, 0, None)] + stack: List[Tuple[BinaryTreeNode, int, str | None]] = [(self.root, 0, None)]
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
datastructures/trees/binary/tree/__init__.py(3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code graph analysis (1)
datastructures/trees/binary/tree/__init__.py (1)
datastructures/trees/binary/node.py (1)
BinaryTreeNode(6-184)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
datastructures/trees/binary/tree/__init__.py (2)
2-2: LGTM!The
Tupleimport is correctly added to support the type annotation on line 653.
677-677: Verify the return type choice.The method returns
List[List[BinaryTreeNode]](lists of node objects), which differs fromlevel_order_traversal(lines 85-107) that returnsList[Any]containing node values (node.data).Most standard zigzag level-order traversal implementations return node values rather than node objects. Please confirm this design choice is intentional.
If values are intended instead of nodes, apply this diff:
- def zig_zag_level_order(self) -> List[List[BinaryTreeNode]]: + def zig_zag_level_order(self) -> List[List[T]]: """ Perform zigzag level order traversal of a binary tree. Returns: - List[List[BinaryTreeNode]] - zigzag level order traversal + List[List[T]] - zigzag level order traversal of node valuesAnd update line 707:
- current_level.append(node) + current_level.append(node.data)
Describe your change:
Adds zig zag level order traversal algorithm
Checklist:
Fixes: #{$ISSUE_NO}.Summary by CodeRabbit