Implemented NoCommentsYamlLine #97
Conversation
|
@amihaiemil Please check this commit :). I have made |
| while(i < string.length() && string.charAt(i) != '"') { | ||
| i++; | ||
| } | ||
| } else { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@SherifWaly For readability, I think you can remove this else and just leave i++, since it's going to be executed anyway, no matter the previous ifs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@amihaiemil This extra else had a test that it will fail at. I've removed it and changed the trimsCommentsAtEndOfLine() test to check that it doesn't fail now.
|
|
||
| @Override | ||
| public String trimmed() { | ||
| String string = this.line.trimmed(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@SherifWaly Rename this variable to trimmed maybe? string is too generic :D
| * NoCommentsYamlLine doesn't remove # escaped in a string. | ||
| */ | ||
| @Test | ||
| public void doesnotTrimsEscapedHash() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The name here should be doesNotTrimEscapedHash() (N and Trim instead of Trims)
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * NoCommentsYamlLine doesn't remove # escaped in a string. |
|
@amihaiemil Please check it now I've also made a small change at |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@SherifWaly the else change must be reverted -- sorry, my mistake :D
| } | ||
| i++; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@SherifWaly ah, sorry, the else is needed, since you only want i++ executed if the flow hasn't gone through the 2 ifs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@amihaiemil I'm really confused but that is what I'm thinking at, there are 2 cases:
First: it's a " char and the while loop will stop when it finds another one but i will not be incremented so the modified test fails.
Second: it's any other char so i should be incremented.
What's your opinion :D ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@SherifWaly Well, I tried now the code, and the test without the else and without the modification passes fine. How did it fail for you? :D (you said you modified it because it failed once you removed the else).
After running the code, my opinion is that it's correct without the else and also the original test passes.
It's correct without the else because the while in else if stops at a " - then you need to make i++ to get to the next char :D
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@amihaiemil I wanted to say that the modified test fails if I used else but the first one passes in both cases :D
So just I modified the test to make the code with else fails :D
I think I should add both tests to make the difference clear.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@SherifWaly I see now.
Yes, add both tests, but leave the else out, this is how it's correct. The modified test fails with the else because the else introduces a bug, the i misses an incrementation.
Makes sense now? Both tests are good and have to pass - the code has to satisfy both of them.
| @@ -99,18 +99,18 @@ public void trimsCommentsLine() { | |||
| @Test | |||
| public void trimsCommentsAtEndOfLine() { | |||
| YamlLine noComments = new NoCommentsYamlLine( | |||
| new RtYamlLine(" this isn't comment #here is the comment", 1) | |||
| new RtYamlLine(" \"this isn't comment\" #here is the comment", 1) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@SherifWaly make this test as it was :D
This test failed with the else change, because it actually found a bug.
You changed the test to pass, instead of fixing the bug -- it's a common mistake, I also used to do it, not realizing that the code should be changed to pass the test, not the other way around (of course, assuming the test is well written, which this test was)
|
@SherifWaly Should be ok now, thanks :) |
|
@rultor merge please |
@amihaiemil OK, I'll try to merge now. You can check the progress of the merge here |
@amihaiemil Done! FYI, the full log is here (took me 1min) |
|
@amihaiemil Sorry for the misunderstand that I've made by changing the test :) |
|
@SherifWaly No worries, it's good that we caught it :) This proves the tests help and coverage actually matters |
|
@amihaiemil Yes, testing is really important to catch such issues :) |
PR for #95