Improved test for roll_the_die #2354
Conversation
- Tests now check whether multiple rolls supply different results
- RollDie is checked for returning all values in the expected range
- Increased for loop from 100 times to 1000 times to prevent false negative. Encountered that 100 rolls was not sufficient to have all numbers in range(1, 18) to be generated.
Rationale:
My first implementation (thanks XKCD) made the test suite pass.
```
public int RollDie()
{
return 4; // chosen by fair dice roll.
// guaranteed to be random.
}
```
|
Hello. Thanks for opening a PR on Exercism 🙂 We ask that all changes to Exercism are discussed on our Community Forum before being opened on GitHub. To enforce this, we automatically close all PRs that are submitted. That doesn't mean your PR is rejected but that we want the initial discussion about it to happen on our forum where a wide range of key contributors across the Exercism ecosystem can weigh in. You can use this link to copy this into a new topic on the forum. If we decide the PR is appropriate, we'll reopen it and continue with it, so please don't delete your local branch. If you're interested in learning more about this auto-responder, please read this blog post. Note: If this PR has been pre-approved, please link back to this PR on the forum thread and a maintainer or staff member will reopen it. |
| var rollCount = 100; | ||
| var rolls = new HashSet<double>(rollCount); | ||
| var player = new Player(); | ||
| var strength = player.GenerateSpellStrength(); | ||
| Assert.InRange(strength, 0.0, 100.0); | ||
| for (var i = 0; i < rollCount; i++) | ||
| { | ||
| var strength = player.GenerateSpellStrength(); | ||
| rolls.Add(strength); | ||
| Assert.InRange(strength, 0.0, 100.0); | ||
| } | ||
| Assert.Equal(rollCount, rolls.Count); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this mean that you expect all 100 rolls to be unique, correct? If so, I wonder if we should maybe be slightly more tolerant of accidental duplicates. Maybe something like Assert.True(rolls.Count >= rollCount - 5) or something like that
Rationale:
My first implementation (thanks XKCD) made the test suite pass.