[Resistor Duo analyzer (#127)] Add feedback to extract the constant to the top level if defined locally

[Steffe-Dev]

The goal of this PR is to address a subset of issue #127, namely adding the feedback to extract the constant to the top level when it was defined locally to the Resistor Color Duo analyzer.

Context

The original issue posed two problems to solve:

1. Suppress the feedback to extract a helper method when an object was used as the constant.
2. Introduce a new feedback item that suggests extracting the constant to top level scope if it was defined locally.

This PR addresses (2), since it is an atomic piece of new functionality. After the resolution of this PR the state of the issue should be re-evaluated, since addressing (1) would, in my opinion, require a refactor, due to the entanglement of logic between the helper method feedback and the rest of the feedback, which should be weighed against the value gained.

Main changes

• Added a new class (ShouldDefineTopLevelConstant) to denote the new kind of feedback.
• Added logic to instantiate this class and assign it to the lastIssue_ member of the Entry class, such that it can be consumed in the index.ts file responsible for parsing the result of the Resistor Color Duo analyzer.
• Added a new comment factory to be used for this feedback. It closely resembles the PREFER_EXTRACTED_TOP_LEVEL_CONSTANT factory defined in the GigasecondSolution.ts file. This copy will have to be added to the website_copy repo.
• Updated the snapshot tests to reflect the change.

[github-actions]

Hello. Thanks for opening a PR on Exercism 🙂

We ask that all changes to Exercism are discussed on our Community Forum before being opened on GitHub. To enforce this, we automatically close all PRs that are submitted. That doesn't mean your PR is rejected but that we want the initial discussion about it to happen on our forum where a wide range of key contributors across the Exercism ecosystem can weigh in.

You can use this link to copy this into a new topic on the forum. If we decide the PR is appropriate, we'll reopen it and continue with it, so please don't delete your local branch.

If you're interested in learning more about this auto-responder, please read this blog post.

---

Note: If this PR has been pre-approved, please link back to this PR on the forum thread and a maintainer or staff member will reopen it.

[SleeplessByte]

@Cool-Katt wanna do a first run on a review? I am currently on annual leave so a bit slow!

[Cool-Katt]

о7 i'll got on it boss, but I think it'll be tomorrow at the earliest. Real life got in the way a little.

[Cool-Katt]

Preliminary report: looks good to me.

[SleeplessByte]

I am still on holiday.

Basis of this PR is perfect, notes are about the style of the code flow and suggestions how to fix that.

[SleeplessByte]

Yeah flows better I think.

I don't know what will happen in a case where this tip (suggestion) is added and something else is wrong, but not that concerned about it. Will it still suggest to use a helper function? Because it shouldn't.

Regarding my comment in website copy, I think this is the line that injects the function signature:

javascript-analyzer/src/analyzers/practice/resistor-color-duo/index.ts

Line 374 in 1b7b120

'method.signature': solution.entry.signature,

...so you can reuse that. I think we have export ${'signature'} or something like that in the tip that tells you to inline the export

[Steffe-Dev]

Regarding what will happen when other things are wrong, I updated the snapshot tests with my first iteration, and then after this flow change all the tests still passed, which includes not suggesting a helper function when this new tip is raised. It makes sense, because my code does an early exit before we reach the part of the analysis that checks for the presence of a helper function, and that didn't change with this iteration. But please feel free to check out the branch and run them yourself if you are curious. 😄

Good catch on showing their exact export. I will make it happen. 🙌

[SleeplessByte]

Looking great.