Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update DnDCharacterTest.java #2548

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 17, 2023
Merged

Update DnDCharacterTest.java #2548

merged 3 commits into from
Nov 17, 2023

Conversation

vonabirgea
Copy link
Contributor

Just have added all the other abilities to be checked on being calculated just once (lines 178 - 182). Before it was only strength to be checked.

pull request


Reviewer Resources:

Track Policies

Just have added all the other abilities to be checked on being calculated just once (lines 178 - 182). Before it was only strength to be checked.
@sanderploegsma
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks! I think this is a good addition to the test cases.

One thing that I would like to address is that the tests in this exercise are based on canonical data that is shared across Exercism tracks. Here the test case explicitly mentions to check only the strength property, so we would be deviating from the canonical data.

In this case I think the deviation is warranted, and we might even consider opening an issue in the problem specifications to address this in the canonical data itself. Until then though, I think we should mention somewhere that our test deviates from the canonical data and why.

Each practice exercise in this repository that has canonical data has a tests.toml file in the exercise's .meta directory that keeps track of which tests have been implemented. I suggest adding a comment in there to explain the deviation, like so:

  [2ca77b9b-c099-46c3-a02c-0d0f68ffa0fe]
  description = "each ability is only calculated once"
+ comment = "The canonical data only verify the strength ability, we chose to verify every ability instead."

@vonabirgea would you be willing to commit and push this change as well?

@vonabirgea
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think I've just done what you proposed, @sanderploegsma. I'm totally new to contributing, pull-requesting and all that stuff, so if I did something wrong - please let me know, I will try my best to make it right then. Thanks for your help!

@sanderploegsma
Copy link
Contributor

@vonabirgea no problem, Exercism is all about learning so you're in the right place 😉

I see that you made your change in another Pull Request instead of this one. Probably you forgot to commit the changes for the tests.toml file to the brach containing the changes for this PR (it's called patch-1 and exists on your fork of this repository), and committed them to another branch instead (the main branch on your fork).

You could try to push the commit to the patch-1 instead, so that both changes end up in this same PR. If you're not sure how to do that it's fine, we can merge both PRs individually as they do not conflict with each other so it shouldn't be a problem.

@sanderploegsma sanderploegsma self-requested a review November 3, 2023 07:58
@sanderploegsma
Copy link
Contributor

@vonabirgea Since the problem-specifications were updated to reflect this change in the canonical data, I took the liberty of syncing the tests.toml on your branch. This also means that #2550 is no longer required.

@sanderploegsma sanderploegsma merged commit e4177aa into exercism:main Nov 17, 2023
@sanderploegsma
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for your contribution! 👍

@vonabirgea vonabirgea deleted the patch-1 branch November 19, 2023 15:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants