Range for small spike minimum price slightly off

[Thenakedgun]

Things to check

• Have you forced a refresh in your browser (e.g. ctrl+F5 in Chrome/Firefox)?
  • yes
• Have you made sure the first time buyer option is correct? If you're unsure, try it both ways
  • yes
• Have you time-travelled this week? Travelling backwards resets the prices, and therefore you must not put prices in from both before & after the time-travel
  • no

Describe the bug

If you see in the following image, for a "basePrice" of 99 Bells, and Monday values of 65 & 110 respectively, it narrows it down to a single possible "Small Spike" Pattern, which I believe is correct. However, the Wednesday morning range seems off. Not quite sure what the JS issue is, but based on the original C++ for the peak of the Small Spike Pattern:

    rate = randfloat(1.4, 2.0);
    sellPrices[work++] = intceil(randfloat(1.4, rate) * basePrice) - 1;
    sellPrices[work++] = intceil(rate * basePrice); // Peak

From what I understand of the algorithms, that puts the value between Math.ceil(99 * 1.4) and Math.ceil(99 * 2.0) which is between 139 & 198, not 138 & 198. The 138 makes sense for the day prior to the peak because of the "minus 1" at the end, but not for the peak itself, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. Select "no" to first time buyer
2. Previous pattern was "small spike"
3. Base price of 99
4. Monday: AM: 65, PM: 110

Expected behavior
The only possible pattern should be small spike, however, the Wednesday morning price I would expect to be minimum 139 & not 138.

Screenshots

Desktop (please complete the following information):

• OS: Windows 10
• Browser: Firefox
• Version: 76

[NeatNit]

This is one of the two issues I reported in #367 and a pull request to fix it has been opened at #369.

[Thenakedgun]

Ah yep, sorry about that. Was late when I posted this, but still don't know how I forgot to look through other bugs that mentioned small spike first before posting.

What's the GitHub process here? Since it was already mentioned within an existing issue, should I close this issue?

[NeatNit]

Not really sure, I'm not a contributor and have 0 authority, but probably you shouldn't worry about it. A friendly person-in-charge will show up and decide what to do.

It's probably for the best that you opened this separately because my issue was about two entirely separate issues, which makes it harder to keep track. This one is specifically about one issue.