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

test(deque): add more tests #1373

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 26, 2024
Merged

test(deque): add more tests #1373

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 26, 2024

Conversation

peter-jerry-ye
Copy link
Collaborator

From #1362

Copy link

peter-jerry-ye-code-review bot commented Dec 26, 2024

‼️ This code review is generated by a bot. Please verify the content before trusting it.

Here are a few observations and potential issues with the provided git diff output:

  1. Inconsistent Test Naming:

    • The test names "deque push_front when empty" and "deque push_back when empty" are inconsistent with the existing test naming style. The earlier test "iter2 when tail needs to wrap around" uses a more concise naming style. Consider aligning the new test names with the existing style for consistency, such as "push_front when empty" and "push_back when empty".
  2. Unnecessary Use of guard:

    • In both new tests, the guard let Some(f) = ... statement is used to unwrap the result of pop_back and pop_front. However, since the deque is explicitly initialized with [0, 1] and the pop operations are guaranteed to succeed, the guard statement is unnecessary. You can directly unwrap the result using let f = d.pop_back().unwrap() or similar, which would make the code more concise.
  3. Potential Misleading Test Logic:

    • In the "deque push_front when empty" test, the deque is initialized with [0, 1], and then two pop_back operations are performed. After the first pop_back, the deque contains [0], and after the second, it becomes empty. The push_front operation is then performed, but the test checks if the deque contains [0]. This might be misleading because the deque was empty before the push_front operation. Similarly, in the "deque push_back when empty" test, the logic might be confusing. Consider clarifying the test logic or renaming the tests to better reflect their behavior.

These suggestions aim to improve code readability, consistency, and clarity.

@peter-jerry-ye peter-jerry-ye enabled auto-merge (rebase) December 26, 2024 02:49
@coveralls
Copy link
Collaborator

coveralls commented Dec 26, 2024

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 4346

Details

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage remained the same at 83.3%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 4342: 0.0%
Covered Lines: 4634
Relevant Lines: 5563

💛 - Coveralls

@peter-jerry-ye peter-jerry-ye merged commit a3d9b1e into main Dec 26, 2024
13 checks passed
@peter-jerry-ye peter-jerry-ye deleted the zihang/add-deque-test branch December 26, 2024 02:53
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.

2 participants