Implement commands and encapsulate fields in Purchase object #137
Conversation
Encapsulation of fields in Purchase & Implementation of RemovePaidCommand
gohsnn
changed the title
| * Stores the details to edit the installment with. Each non-empty field value will replace the | ||
| * corresponding field value of the installment. | ||
| */ | ||
| public static class EditInstallmentDescriptor { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can consider abstracting this class out? might be neater.
| EditInstallmentCommand.MESSAGE_USAGE), pe); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| EditInstallmentCommand.EditInstallmentDescriptor editInstallmentDescriptor = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can consider importing the nested class straight to improve readability.
| @@ -51,8 +53,12 @@ public void resetData(PurchaseList purchaseList) { | |||
| //=========== Getter Methods ================================================================================== | |||
|
|
|||
| public Purchase getPurchase(int purchaseIndex) { | |||
| Index index = Index.fromOneBased(purchaseIndex); | |||
| return allPurchases.get(index.getZeroBased()); | |||
| try { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the try / catch statement is not needed here, a guard conditional might be better.
|
|
||
| public double getMonthlyLimit() { | ||
| return monthlyLimit; | ||
| public ArrayList<Purchase> getPurchaseList() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps return a List instead? Not much issue here actually, but I think its good to return the interface instead of concrete class instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ArrayLists used were changed to ObservableLists to accomodate ListFinancesCommand
| @@ -132,7 +99,7 @@ public void addSinglePurchase(Purchase purchase) { | |||
| * | |||
| * @param itemNumber of payment to be deleted | |||
| */ | |||
| public Purchase deleteSinglePurchase(int itemNumber) { | |||
| public Purchase deleteSinglePurchase(int itemNumber) throws PurchaseNotFoundException { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Runtime exception no need to declare in method signature, but I am not too sure on which is better. There is an argument that it may be confusing to differentiate between checked exceptions, and can also clutter logic. But I am not too sure how valid these opinions are.
| @@ -97,7 +121,7 @@ public Purchase deletePurchase(int purchaseIndex) { | |||
| public double totalSpending() { | |||
| double total = 0; | |||
| for (Purchase purchase : allPurchases) { | |||
| total += purchase.getMoneySpent(); | |||
| total += purchase.getMoneySpent().getPurchaseAmount(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
return purchase.stream().reduce(0, (prev, next) -> prev + next.getMoneySpent().getPurchaseAmount() works too
Change purchaseList and installmentList to ObservableList
Things done:
commands added: add-paid, delete-paid, edit-install, list
encapsulation of fields in
Purchaseobjectreorganise methods in files