London | 26-ITP-May | Dipa Sarker | Sprint 3 | Implement and rewrite final#1470
Conversation
|
Hello Reviewers, |
| if (angle <= 0 || angle >= 360) { | ||
| return "Invalid angle"; | ||
| } | ||
| else if (angle == 90) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Whats the difference between == and === and why are you using == here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
== converts and compares operands that are of different types and === always considers operands of different types to be different. In this case, angle == 90 which means LHS is compared with RHS and it is equal. I can also use ===.
| //module.exports = getAngleType; | ||
|
|
||
| // This helper function is written to make our assertions easier to read. | ||
| // If the actual output matches the target output, the test will pass | ||
| // function assertEquals(actualOutput, targetOutput) { | ||
| //console.assert( | ||
| //actualOutput === targetOutput, | ||
| //`Expected ${actualOutput} to equal ${targetOutput}` | ||
| //); | ||
| //} | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: Write tests to cover all cases, including boundary and invalid cases. | ||
| // Example: Identify Right Angles | ||
| //const right = getAngleType(90); | ||
| //assertEquals(right, "Right angle"); No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you commit and push all code?
If you check on the remote (for example in the PR diff view on Github) you' ll see the code: https://github.com/CodeYourFuture/Module-Structuring-and-Testing-Data/pull/1470/changes#diff-714a296fc0e0b2cf1e44da9dcbd08ccd678295a69af1884e7f2e1686aaef8626R81
| expect(getAngleType(91)).toEqual("Obtuse angle"); | ||
| expect(getAngleType(120)).toEqual("Obtuse angle"); | ||
| expect(getAngleType(179)).toEqual("Obtuse angle"); | ||
| }); | ||
| test(`should return "Straight angle" when (0 == 180)`, () => { | ||
| expect(getAngleType(180)).toEqual("Straight angle"); | ||
| }); | ||
| test(`should return "Reflex angle" when (180 < angle < 360)`, () => { | ||
| expect(getAngleType(181)).toEqual("Reflex angle"); | ||
| expect(getAngleType(270)).toEqual("Reflex angle"); | ||
| expect(getAngleType(359)).toEqual("Reflex angle"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good job on testing the border cases here
| expect(getAngleType(-1)).toEqual("Invalid angle"); | ||
| expect(getAngleType(370)).toEqual("Invalid angle"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Which border cases can you test here? (Which numbers are closest to the condition?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tested for the invalid case when (angle <= 0 || angle >= 360). So, when i considered -1 and 370, the closest number for this condition is -1 and 361. Because -1 is closest to 0 and 361 is closest to 360.
| test(`should return false when numerator is negative`, () => { | ||
| expect(isProperFraction(-1, 1)).toEqual(false); | ||
| }); | ||
| test(`should return false when denominator is negative`, () => { | ||
| expect(isProperFraction(1, -1)).toEqual(false); | ||
| }); No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about values like -1/2 or 1/-2. What should the function return for them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think for values like -1/2 or 1/-2, the function will also return false because proper fractions normally require positive numerator and denominator.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe a proper fraction can also include negative values
In general, a common fraction is said to be a proper fraction if the absolute value of the fraction is strictly less than one—that is, if the fraction is greater than −1 and less than 1.
|
|
||
| function isProperFraction(numerator, denominator) { | ||
| // TODO: Implement this function | ||
| if (numerator <= 0 || denominator <= 0) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why does the numerator be bigger than 0?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry I cannot understand your question. It says, the numerator is less than or equal to 0.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry I was missing a word. Why can the numerator not be 0?
| if (!validRank.includes(rank) || !validSuit.includes(suit)) { | ||
| throw new Error("Invalid Card"); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (rank === "A") { | ||
| return 11; | ||
| } | ||
| else if (rank === "J" || rank=== "Q" || rank === "K") { | ||
| return 10; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // The line below allows us to load the getCardValue function into tests in other files. | ||
| // This will be useful in the "rewrite tests with jest" step. | ||
| module.exports = getCardValue; | ||
| else if (rank >= 2 && rank <= 10) { | ||
| return Number(rank); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The indentation is a bit off. How can you ensure consistent formatting in your code?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I used prettier tool to fix the formation of the entire code. Please let me know if it is okay or not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see any changes on this file. Did you push the changes?
| const validRank = ["A","2","3","4","5","6","7","8","9","10","J","Q","K"]; | ||
| const validSuit = ["♠","♥","♦","♣"]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good job on explicitly listing all allowed ranks and suits. This makes the code easier to read and the logic for checking easier as well.
| // The line below allows us to load the getCardValue function into tests in other files. | ||
| // This will be useful in the "rewrite tests with jest" step. | ||
| module.exports = getCardValue; | ||
| else if (rank >= 2 && rank <= 10) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What happens if the condition is false?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If rank >= 2 && rank <= 10 is false, suppose if rank = 11, the function does not return Number(rank). For invalid rank throw new Error("Invalid Card") check before reaching this point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So when the code reaches this point you can already be certain that the rank is between 2 and 10. You did the checks earlier so this condition is not needed and can be removed.
| expect(getCardValue("K♦")).toEqual(10); | ||
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
| describe("Invalid Cards", () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Which part of the condition is not covered by the invalid test cases yet?
if (!validRank.includes(rank) || !validSuit.includes(suit)) {
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes exactly. Please add some test cases for verifying teh valid suit check works correctly
|
It seems some of your changes are not pushed. Please always ensure the changes are pushed correctly by checking the diff view of the PR in Github directly |

Learners, PR Template
Self checklist
Changelist