Implement Queen Attack generator #393
Conversation
jpreese
force-pushed
the
add-queen-attack-generator
branch
2 times, most recently
from
beb5f6d to
d14e62a
Compare
|
I'm a bit confused. I would expect the |
jpreese
force-pushed
the
add-queen-attack-generator
branch
from
d14e62a to
f7eac6f
Compare
|
That was my initial approach as well. I added the Create() method in the stub and had it return type Queen. Though the canonical data has it returning 0 for success, and -1 for failure, I'm not sure why it uses a number for creation, but a boolean for attacking. Though now that I'm thinking aloud, it may be better to not take the canonical data so literally, and actually go back to Create returning Queen, but throw an exception. |
|
Agreed! The canonical data can be quite weird sometimes. |
|
Lets give that approach a whirl. |
|
In case the github ping didn't go off for some reason, this has been changed to throw exceptions. |
| public void Cannot_occupy_same_space() | ||
| public void Queen_with_a_valid_position() | ||
| { | ||
| var actual = QueenAttack.Create(2, 2); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps add a comment below this line to indicate that we are testing that no exception is thrown.
generators/Exercises/QueenAttack.cs
Outdated
| return RenderCanAttackAssert(testMethodBody); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if(testMethodBody.UseVariableForTested) |
generators/Exercises/QueenAttack.cs
Outdated
| { | ||
| foreach(var canonicalDataCase in canonicalData.Cases) | ||
| { | ||
| if(canonicalDataCase.Property == "create") |
generators/Exercises/QueenAttack.cs
Outdated
| { | ||
| protected override void UpdateCanonicalData(CanonicalData canonicalData) | ||
| { | ||
| foreach(var canonicalDataCase in canonicalData.Cases) |
|
I really need to remember to update my visual studio formatting preferences. |
You really shouldn't have to remember, we should have the tooling do that! I've created an issue for this: #398 |
|
I don't think it's worth making a special template for the initial case of making a comment, so I just added it to the test description. |
|
@jpreese Did you re-run the test generator after making that change? It doesn't appear in the test file :) |
|
Thanks a lot! 🎉 |
One thing to note is that our Example for this one isn't quite complete, so I'm going to start that now.
I'm open to suggestions on the generator for this one.. it feels like a lot, but it could just be a more complicated test to generate. Nothing felt too hacky, and most of it made sense to me.
Edit: Example updated to pass new tests.