Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also the comment line should be updated accordingly
And please fix also the PR description, which is misleading:
"The showering is set up in such a way that emissions that are outside a resonance, i.e. do not come from top quarks, are handled by the normal EmissionVetoHook1.cc hook, while PowhegHooksBB4L.h handles emissions that are inside a resonance.
Looking at the single changed line, it can be clearly seen that the condition needs to be the other way around for this to happen correctly - if the emission is in resonance, the EmissionVetoHook should not consider it, and leave it up to PowhegHooksBB4L."
(You say that the condition needs to be to other way around, but you repeat the same conditions as before)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi,
I've updated the PR description to hopefully make it more clear. As far as I can tell, the comment is already correct (it was not describing the code before the change, which is partly how I found the bug).