Enhance "look" ability #162
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #162 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 92.32% 92.35% +0.03%
==========================================
Files 83 83
Lines 1055 1060 +5
Branches 173 177 +4
==========================================
+ Hits 974 979 +5
Misses 66 66
Partials 15 15
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
@pigalot I added a |
| .map(offset => unit.getSensedSpaceAt(direction, offset)) | ||
| .some(space => { | ||
| sensedSpaces.push(space); | ||
| return space && space.isWall && space.isWall(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can safely assume any space returned by unit.getSensedSpaceAt() will have the isWall method so this check should be simplified.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That would be true but the fakes given by the existing unit tests are not of type Space so do not have .isWall method.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, you should add isWall() to the mocks though now that a simple string does not suffice.
const space1 = { isWall: () => false };
const space2 = { isWall: () => false };
...
unit.getSensedSpaceAt
.mockReturnValueOnce(space1)
.mockReturnValueOnce(space2)
...| const sensedSpaces = []; | ||
| offsets | ||
| .map(offset => unit.getSensedSpaceAt(direction, offset)) | ||
| .some(space => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have you thought about using spaces.slice() instead of .some() and an auxiliary array? I think it's cleaner than .some().
firstWallIndex can be calculated with spaces.findIndex(). If a wall is found, then slice the spaces array up to that wall. If not, return all spaces. What do you think?
Fixes #160