From cd128984e14cd1d8f01d574e89257c8817404f51 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: bgbsww <bgbsww@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:39:21 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Toponaming: make sure toposhapes have hashers

---
 src/App/ComplexGeoData.cpp                         | 10 ++++++++++
 src/App/ComplexGeoData.h                           |  6 +-----
 src/App/Document.cpp                               |  1 -
 .../TestTopologicalNamingProblem.py                | 14 +++++---------
 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/App/ComplexGeoData.cpp b/src/App/ComplexGeoData.cpp
index 475ce35d2b..19dbe6afa9 100644
--- a/src/App/ComplexGeoData.cpp
+++ b/src/App/ComplexGeoData.cpp
@@ -296,6 +296,16 @@ ComplexGeoData::getElementMappedNames(const IndexedName& element, bool needUnmap
     return {std::make_pair(MappedName(element), ElementIDRefs())};
 }
 
+ElementMapPtr ComplexGeoData::resetElementMap(ElementMapPtr elementMap)
+{
+    _elementMap.swap(elementMap);
+    // We expect that if the ComplexGeoData ( TopoShape ) has a hasher, then its elementMap will
+    // have the same one.  Make sure that happens.
+    if ( _elementMap && ! _elementMap->hasher )
+        _elementMap->hasher = Hasher;
+    return elementMap;
+}
+
 std::vector<MappedElement> ComplexGeoData::getElementMap() const
 {
     flushElementMap();
diff --git a/src/App/ComplexGeoData.h b/src/App/ComplexGeoData.h
index 3f3c846ccf..73110093e7 100644
--- a/src/App/ComplexGeoData.h
+++ b/src/App/ComplexGeoData.h
@@ -316,11 +316,7 @@ public:
      *
      * @return Returns the existing element map.
      */
-    virtual ElementMapPtr resetElementMap(ElementMapPtr elementMap = ElementMapPtr())
-    {
-        _elementMap.swap(elementMap);
-        return elementMap;
-    }
+    virtual ElementMapPtr resetElementMap(ElementMapPtr elementMap = ElementMapPtr());
 
     /// Get the entire element map
     std::vector<MappedElement> getElementMap() const;
diff --git a/src/App/Document.cpp b/src/App/Document.cpp
index 988803e236..f83c0d4343 100644
--- a/src/App/Document.cpp
+++ b/src/App/Document.cpp
@@ -1075,7 +1075,6 @@ std::pair<bool,int> Document::addStringHasher(const StringHasherRef & hasher) co
 
 StringHasherRef Document::getStringHasher(int idx) const {
     if(idx<0) {
-            return d->Hasher;
         return d->Hasher;
     }
     StringHasherRef hasher;
diff --git a/src/Mod/PartDesign/PartDesignTests/TestTopologicalNamingProblem.py b/src/Mod/PartDesign/PartDesignTests/TestTopologicalNamingProblem.py
index 5af1cfb398..a236bbbc49 100644
--- a/src/Mod/PartDesign/PartDesignTests/TestTopologicalNamingProblem.py
+++ b/src/Mod/PartDesign/PartDesignTests/TestTopologicalNamingProblem.py
@@ -577,15 +577,11 @@ class TestTopologicalNamingProblem(unittest.TestCase):
         self.Doc.recompute()
         # Assert
         self.assertEqual(len(body.Shape.childShapes()), 1)
-        self.assertEqual(body.Shape.childShapes()[0].ElementMapSize, 30)
-        self.assertEqual(loft.Shape.ElementMapSize, 30)
-        revMap = body.Shape.childShapes()[0].ElementReverseMap
-        # 4 vertexes and 4 edges in each of the two sketches = 16.
-        # Loft is a rectangular prism and so 26.
-        # End map is 12 Edge + 6 face + 8 vertexes (with 4 duplicates)
-        # Why only 4 dup vertexes in the map, not 8 and 8 dup edges?
-        # Theory:  only vertexes on the actual profile matter to the mapper.
-        # Has newnames, so we must have done a boolean to attach the ends to the pipe.
+        # 6 face 12 edge 8 vertexes = 26
+        # 4 edges are duplicated (the originals from the sketch loft profile, and then those in the loft)
+        # 4 vertexes are quad dups for 12 more.  26 + 4 + 12 = 42
+        self.assertEqual(body.Shape.ElementMapSize, 42)
+        revMap = body.Shape.ElementReverseMap
         self.assertNotEqual(loft.Shape.ElementReverseMap['Vertex1'],"Vertex1")
         self.assertNotEqual(revMap['Vertex1'],"Vertex1")
         self.assertEqual(self.countFacesEdgesVertexes(loft.Shape.ElementReverseMap),(6,12,8))