In effort to make my code look more readable I am trying reduce the number times the conditions are written out for an if statement. The approach so far:
bool op = token=="+"||token=="-"||token=="*"||token=="/"||
token=="&"||token=="|"||token=="<"||token==">"||
token=="=";
...
if(op==0){...}
The issue is that token is constantly changing! Is there anyway to work around this?
Define a function with a meaningful name:
private boolean myBusinessCondition(String token){
token=="+"||token=="-"||token=="*"||token=="/"||
token=="&"||token=="|"||token=="<"||token==">"||
token=="="
}
And use it whenever you like:
if(myBusinessCondition(tokenValue)){...}
Related
I am implementing logging functionality in Unreal Engine 4.27 (in C++). A key part of my code is a function that is called once per game-tick. This function is responsible for iterating over an array of actors that I would like to log data for, checking whether a new log entry should be written at this point in time and calling the necessary functions to do that.
I am iterating over elements of a TArray of UStructs: LogObject->LoggingInfo = TArray<FActorLoggingInformation>. This array is defined as a UProperty of LogObject. In the loop I have to change the values of the elements so I want to work with the original items and "label" the current item as "ActorLoggingInfo". I have seen this done generally in cpp and also with TArrays. And yet my code does not work, there is no error message, but ActorLoggingInfo is undefined, thus the if-condition is never met.
This is the for-loop:
for (FActorLoggingInformation& ActorLoggingInfo : LogObject->LoggingInfo) {
if (ActorLoggingInfo.LogNextTick == true) {
ActorLoggingInfo.LogNextTick = false;
...
}
...
}
This is the definition of FActorLoggingInformation:
USTRUCT(BlueprintType)
struct FActorLoggingInformation
{
GENERATED_BODY()
public:
FActorLoggingInformation()
{
}
FActorLoggingInformation(int32 LogTimer, AActor* Actor, FString LogName)
{
this->LogTimer = LogTimer;
this->LogNextTick = false;
...
}
// Specifies Logging Frequency in ms
UPROPERTY(BlueprintReadOnly, VisibleAnywhere)
int32 LogTimer;
bool LogNextTick;
...
};
This is the debugger at run-time:
Additional Notes:
1. Something that consistently works for me is omitting the &, using:
for (FActorLoggingInformation ActorLoggingInfo : LogObject->LoggingInfo)
However, this is creating useless duplicates on a per-tick basis and complicates applying changes to the original objects from within in the for-loop, so it is not a viable option.
2. I have also tried auto& instead of FActorLoggingInformation& as used in the examples above, but I encountered the same issue, so I thought it would be best to be as explicit as possible.
I would be very thankful if you had any ideas how I can fix this :)
Thanks in advance!
Thanks to Avi Berger for helping me find my problem!
In fact, ActorLoggingInfo was actually never undefined and the code within the body of the if-clause was also executed (it just didn't do what it was intended to do).
When stepping through the code in the debugger it never showed the steps within the if-body and ActorLoggingInfo was shown as undefined so when no logs were written, I assumed it was something to do with that instead of my output function not working properly. So lesson learnt, do not blindly trust the debugger :)
I have a few tests for an API, and I would like to be able to express certain tests that reflect "aspirational" or "extra credit" requirements - in other words, it's great if they pass, but fine if they don't. For instance:
[Test]
public void RequiredTest()
{
// our client is using positive numbers in DoThing();
int result = DoThing(1);
Assert.That( /* result is correct */ );
}
[Test]
public void OptionalTest()
{
// we do want to handle negative numbers, but our client is not yet using them
int result = DoThing(-1);
Assert.That( /* result is correct */ );
}
I know about the Ignore attribute, but I would like to be able to mark OptionalTest in such a way that it still runs on the CI server, but is fine if it does not pass - as soon as it does, I would like to take notice and perhaps make it a requirement. Is there any major unit test framework that supports this?
I would use a Warnings to achieve this. That way - your test will print a 'warning' output, but not be a failure, and not fail your CI build.
See: https://github.com/nunit/docs/wiki/Warnings
as soon as it does, I would like to take notice and perhaps make it a requirement.
This part's a slightly separate requirement! Depends a lot on how you want to 'take notice'! Consider looking at Custom Attributes - it may be possible to write an IWrapSetUpTearDown attribute, which sends an email when the relevant test passes. See the docs, here: https://github.com/nunit/docs/wiki/ICommandWrapper-Interface
The latter is a more unusual requirement - I would expect to have to do something custom to fit your needs there!
I've got an object Obj doing some (elaborate) computation and want to check weather the result (let's call it aComputed and bComputed) is correct or not. Therefore I want to split this task up into multiple test methods:
testA() { load aToBe; check if number aComputed = aToBe }
testB() { load bToBe; check if number bComputed = bToBe }
The problem is, that Obj is "executed" twice (which takes a lot of time) - one time per test. The question is: How can I manage that it's just "executed" once and the result is used used by both tests?
At the moment Obj is placed inside the setUp-function and saves the results to a private member of the test-class.
Thanks for helping!
There is no easy solution that allows you to split the code into two test methods. Each test method results in a new test object with an own set of local variables.
Obviously you could work around this problem through a static variable but in the long run this normally just causes issues and breaks the ideas behind the framework.
The better idea is to just write the two CPPUNIT_ASSERT in the same test method. If the results are part of the same calculation there is most likely not much value in splitting the checks into two independent test methods.
I've written my own access layer to a game engine. There is a GameLoop which gets called every frame which lets me process my own code. I'm able to do specific things and to check if these things happened. In a very basic way it could look like this:
void cycle()
{
//set a specific value
Engine::setText("Hello World");
//read the value
std::string text = Engine::getText();
}
I want to test if my Engine-layer is working by writing automated tests. I have some experience in using the Boost Unittest Framework for simple comparison tests like this.
The problem is, that some things I want the engine to do are just processed after the call to cycle(). So calling Engine::getText() directly after Engine::setText(...) would return an empty string. If I would wait until the next call of cycle() the right value would be returned.
I now am wondering how I should write my tests if it is not possible to process them in the same cycle. Are there any best practices? Is it possible to use the "traditional testing" approach given by Boost Unittest Framework in such an environment? Are there perhaps other frameworks aimed at such a specialised case?
I'm using C++ for everything here, but I could imagine that there are answers unrelated to the programming language.
UPDATE:
It is not possible to access the Engine outside of cycle()
In your example above, std::string text = Engine::getText(); is the code you want to remember from one cycle but execute in the next. You can save it for later execution. For example - using C++11 you could use a lambda to wrap the test into a simple function specified inline.
There are two options with you:
If the library that you have can be used synchronously or using c++11 futures like facility (which can indicate the readyness of the result) then in your test case you can do something as below
void testcycle()
{
//set a specific value
Engine::setText("Hello World");
while (!Engine::isResultReady());
//read the value
assert(Engine::getText() == "WHATEVERVALUEYOUEXPECT");
}
If you dont have the above the best you can do have a timeout (this is not a good option though because you may have spurious failures):
void testcycle()
{
//set a specific value
Engine::setText("Hello World");
while (Engine::getText() != "WHATEVERVALUEYOUEXPECT") {
wait(1 millisec);
if (total_wait_time > 1 sec) // you can put whatever max time
assert(0);
}
}
I've run into the following issue which is not difficult to solve by any stretch of the imagination but I would like to know what the best / most elegant solution is.
I have the following method that the prototype of looks like this:
bool Team::isEveryoneDead(int teamOnTurn);
There are two teams available and depending on what instance of the team is currently on turn, I would like to check whether every Character in the team is dead in this very particular order:
Loop trough all the Characters in the team that's not on turn first. Should there be any character that's alive, stop looping (and goto step 2.). Should there be noone alive, terminate the function and return.
Now that I know that the team that's not on turn contains at least one character that's alive, loop trough the team that's currently on turn and check for the same thing. Should I find someone alive, stop looping and terminate / return.
The argument int teamOnTurn allows me to resolve the instance of Team that's currently on turn. The order in which i evaluate the "alive condition" is of great importance here.
Now, there are several approaches that can be taken, say hardcoding the order (since there are only 2 possible orders) and resolving the order by checking who's on turn and then executing the branch that already has the specific order like this:
bool Team::isEveryoneDead(int teamOnTurn) {
if (Team::Blue == teamOnTurn) {
checkThis();
checkThat();
} else {
checkThat();
checkThis();
}
}
This solution however wouldn't quite work for say 5! permutations for specific call-ordering for more items. What technique should one deploy to solve this with the utmost elegance :) ?
Thanks in advance, Scarlet.
Try creating another internal method that actually does the checking, and let the isEveryoneDead() method orchestrate the order in which the teams are checked, maybe something like this:
bool Team::isEveryoneDead(int teamOnTurn) {
bool isFound = isEveryoneDeadInternal( /* params for team not on turn */ );
if(isFound) {
isFound = isEveryoneDeadInternal( /* params for team on turn */ );
}
return isFound;
}
// This method know nothing about on turn or off turn
bool Team:isEveryoneDeadInternal() {
// Loop through all characters in the team, checking if any are alive
// When the first live character is found, return true
// else return false
}
This is a concept called DRY : Dont Repeat Yourself