Przejdź do głównej zawartości

Code Kata: text game from 1982

* * * W A R N I N G * * *
This Code Kata can seem very strange for people born in the nineties.

The goal is to implement a text-based game in which the player walks through dungeons in order to accomplish a task. The basic characteristics of an implementation are as follows:
  • the game generates random dungeons as a group of ROOMS and PATHS that join the ROOMS
  • the generation does not leave unreachable ROOMS
  • the user is presented with the information about the ROOM  they are in and the ROOMS reachable directly from the current ROOM
  • the user can move from the current ROOM to the directly reachable ROOMS by entering a command
This may seem very boring at first, but let's add some delighters:
  1. We do all of the implementation using "TDD, as if you meant it", of course
  2. Initially, the goal may be simply to get to a given ROOM
  3. Then, we may start adding attributes to ROOMS; a possible attribute is something that the user can collect, such as diamonds; N diamonds are placed in the dungeon and the game is finished when the user collects all of them; additional attributes can be used to describe the look a ROOM
  4. When that's done, we can refactor our implementation so that we do not use IF statements
  5. When that's done, we can refactor our implementation so that we do not use for/while loops
  6. We can work on the implementation a little bit more to get rid of excessive tabs (let's allow only up to two tabs in the body of a function, per Robert Martin's suggestion)
  7. We can get better by limiting the number of lines of a function (how about < 5 lines per function?)
  8. I'm guessing you did all of this with classes and objects; how would you do it with pure functions and no objects?

Komentarze

Popularne posty z tego bloga

Unit Testing code with IO file operations (in Python)

We may often come across a piece of code that was written without Unit Tests at all. In addition, the piece of code may be dealing with IO like file writing and reading, which makes it more difficult to Unit Test it when we are trying to refactor and modify. Let's suppose the code in question looks like this:

def writeInitialsToFile(filename, name, surname):
    initials = name[0] + '.' + surname[0] + '.'
    with open(filename, 'w') as file:
        file.write(initials)

def readInitials(filename):
    initials = None
    with open(filename, 'r') as file:
        initials = file.readline()
    return initials

A straightforward and bad idea would be to write a couple of Unit Tests that make use of a real file and simply test the reading and writing. Is therea a better way to test this code?

First of all, we need a way to replace the real file with something else. For both reading and writing we will now have a couple of functions, one that expects a stream fo…

Piotr's Less Obvious Advice on Google Mock: State maintenance

Google Mock provides several ways to maintain state inside mock objects. One way of implementing state maintenance is with SaveArg. Consider the following example.

We have a class Configurator, which allows a caller to set and get values of a parameter:

class Configurator
{
    public:

    virtual ~Configurator() {}

    virtual void setParamX(int n) = 0;
    virtual int getParamX() = 0;
};

And we have a class Client that calls Configurator's methods and it also has a method incParamXBy, that can be used to increase the current value of paramX by a certain value.

class Client
{
    public:

    Client(Configurator & cfg);
    virtual ~Client() {}

    void setParamX(int n);
    void incParamXBy(int n);
    int getParamX();

    private:

    Configurator & _cfg;
};

incParamXBy internally calls setParamX and getParamX on Configurator:

void Client::incParamXBy(int n)
{
    _cfg.setParamX(_cfg.getParamX() + n);
}

Let's assume that the initial value of paramX is A and that we want to increase paramX by…

Piotr's Less Obvious Advice on Google Mock: Returning new objects from a mock

Google Mock provides a way to return newly created objects from a mock method. Suppose we have a  Generator class that is supposed to generate new objects when createNewRecord method is called:

class Generator
{
    public:
    virtual ~Generator() {}
    virtual Record * createNewRecord() = 0;
};

...and suppose we want to mock this class:

class MockGenerator : public Generator
{
    public:
    MOCK_METHOD0(createNewRecord, Record * ());
};

Suppose the caller class Client has run method defined as follows:

void Client::run()
{
    for(int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
    {
        rec_tab[i] = gen.createNewRecord();
    }
}

We want the mock to return a pointer to a new object each time createNewRecord is called. This is how we can express this in the test code:

TEST(ClientTest, CanRun)
{
    MockGenerator gen;
    Client c(gen);

    EXPECT_CALL(gen, createNewRecord())
        .Times(3)
                 //this is equivalent of returning new Record(1,2,3)
        .WillOnce(ReturnNew<Record>(1,2,3))
        .Will…