Adding approach for Bob #2861

jagdish-15 · 2024-11-09T19:51:10Z

pull request

This pull request adds an approach to the Bob exercise.

I was unsure how to generate a uuid for the approach, so I've left it empty. I would greatly appreciate guidance on how to generate one.

Reviewer Resources:

Track Policies

kahgoh · 2024-11-15T14:31:04Z

exercises/practice/bob/.approaches/method-based/content.md

+        if (isAsking(inputTrimmed))
+            return "Sure.";
+
+        return "Whatever.";


To be honest, I think this approach is the same as the existing if-statement approach. The only difference is that the conditions are in methods instead of variables. Is there something else that differentiates this approach from the other ones?

Thanks @kahgoh for your feedback! I understand your point, and while both the method-based approach and the if statement approach use condition checks, there are a few key differences that I think set the method-based approach apart:

Separation of Concerns:

In the method-based approach, I’ve separated the logic for determining if the message is a question, shouting, or silent into individual methods (isYelling(), isAsking(), isSilent()). This makes the main hey() method cleaner and focused on handling the flow of responses.

In the if approach, the logic is directly embedded in the main method, which could become harder to read and maintain as more checks are added.

Improved Readability:

With the helper methods, it’s clear what each condition is doing without having to dive into complex inline if statements. For example, isYelling() immediately tells you that it’s checking for shouting behaviour, and isAsking() clarifies the question check.

This helps future readers (and even future maintainers) quickly grasp the purpose of each check.

Maintainability:

While maintainability may not be a major concern for these one-time exercises, the method-based approach provides a structure that makes it easier to modify individual checks without cluttering the main method. This is generally a good practice for ensuring clean, readable, and maintainable code, even in simple exercises.

Scalability:

While this specific exercise may not need to scale in the future, separating the logic into individual methods makes it much easier to extend or modify if more conditions are added down the line. Even though we don’t expect more checks here, structuring code this way is generally a good practice for scalability in larger, more complex applications.

In summary, while both approaches work, the method-based approach tends to be cleaner, more modular, and easier to extend. It may seem similar on the surface, but the structure I’ve chosen is designed with maintainability and scalability in mind, which are good practices even for small exercises like this one.

If you have any suggestions or further insights on this approach, I'd be happy to hear them!

Sorry, it has taken me quite a while to get back to this one. I think I can see where you are coming from. Looking around, I noticed Python's approach has two similar if approaches for Bob (if statements and if statements nested). If we were to proceed this approach, perhaps we could do something similar by naming the approach in a similar way to the if statements (for example, if statements with checks in methods).

Btw, looking at the points mentioned under General guidance, there is a point about determining the yelling and questioning once: Use variables for questioning and shouting rather than calling these checks multiple times to improve efficiency. In your example solution, you calling the method again, so it is going to be recalculated. But, my worry about putting them in variables is that it will look even closer to the current if statements approach.

I think the way you've currently is fine as it is, but may be worth pointing out this short coming in the introduction's Which approach to use? .

jagdish-15 · 2024-11-18T19:49:51Z

I've updated this approach to incorporate all the suggestions from the PR for the Queen Attack exercise here. This update ensures consistency in style with the other exercises' approaches. Additionally, the newly added approach's content.md file is now aligned with the format and structure of the two existing approaches.

Please review and let me know your thoughts on this version.

kahgoh · 2024-11-25T14:37:42Z

exercises/practice/bob/.approaches/method-based/content.md

+        if (isAsking(inputTrimmed))
+            return "Sure.";
+
+        return "Whatever.";


Sorry, it has taken me quite a while to get back to this one. I think I can see where you are coming from. Looking around, I noticed Python's approach has two similar if approaches for Bob (if statements and if statements nested). If we were to proceed this approach, perhaps we could do something similar by naming the approach in a similar way to the if statements (for example, if statements with checks in methods).

Btw, looking at the points mentioned under General guidance, there is a point about determining the yelling and questioning once: Use variables for questioning and shouting rather than calling these checks multiple times to improve efficiency. In your example solution, you calling the method again, so it is going to be recalculated. But, my worry about putting them in variables is that it will look even closer to the current if statements approach.

I think the way you've currently is fine as it is, but may be worth pointing out this short coming in the introduction's Which approach to use? .

kahgoh · 2024-11-25T14:40:48Z

exercises/practice/bob/.approaches/method-based/content.md

+        return "Whatever.";
+    }
+
+    private boolean isYelling(String input) {


In the intro and other approaches for this exercise, we have used the term "shouting" instead of "yelling". I'd suggest using the same terminology to keep it consistent within the approaches.

kahgoh · 2024-11-25T14:41:37Z

exercises/practice/bob/.approaches/method-based/content.md

+                    .allMatch(Character::isUpperCase);
+    }
+
+    private boolean isAsking(String input) {


Similar to above, we've used the term "questioning" in the intro and other approaches.

kahgoh · 2024-11-25T14:45:37Z

exercises/practice/bob/.approaches/introduction.md


-## General guidance
+## General Guidance


I don't think the casing in the headings need changing - there are consistent with most other other approaches. Could you undo the changes to the headings?

kahgoh · 2024-11-27T13:37:00Z

exercises/practice/bob/.approaches/method-based/content.md

+
+This approach simplifies the main method `hey` by breaking down each response condition into helper methods:
+
+1. **Trimming the Input**:


Similar to the previous approaches, we probably should make these subheadings.

Suggested change

1. **Trimming the Input**:

### Trimming the Input

kahgoh · 2024-11-27T13:55:53Z

exercises/practice/bob/.approaches/introduction.md


-## Which approach to use?
+- **Method-Based**: Clear and modular, great for readability.
+- **`if` Statements**: Compact and straightforward, suited for smaller projects.


I was thinking the recommendation for smaller projects might be unnecessary - if its suitable for smaller projects, why wouldn't it be suitable for mid-size or larger projects?

Suggested change

- **`if` Statements**: Compact and straightforward, suited for smaller projects.

- **`if` Statements**: Compact and straightforward.

jagdish-15 added 16 commits November 10, 2024 01:18

Adding approach for Bob

a58600a

Fixing style errors

fa97c07

Fixing style errors

f5f7680

Fixing style errors

f6ae1f1

Adding uuid for new approach of bob exercise

4be572f

Fixing nameing issues

da71900

Adding snippet.txt

51a8cd3

FIxing formatting of config.josn for approach of bob

3ddea06

Adding approach for Bob

64261e0

Fixing style errors

b644b1c

Fixing style errors

1dcbe19

Fixing style errors

f06c782

Adding uuid for new approach of bob exercise

d0346c1

Fixing nameing issues

8f2ac6b

Adding snippet.txt

0bf84b5

FIxing formatting of config.josn for approach of bob

e509381

jagdish-15 force-pushed the add-approach-bob branch from 3ddea06 to e509381 Compare November 14, 2024 18:01

kahgoh reviewed Nov 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

jagdish-15 added 4 commits November 19, 2024 01:05

Chnaging the introduction.md for consistancy

f0543c3

Merge branch 'main' into add-approach-bob

e67fc43

Chnaging the introduction.md for consistancy

ad27bb2

Chnaging the introduction.md for fixing styling errors

6def244

jagdish-15 closed this Nov 26, 2024

jagdish-15 deleted the add-approach-bob branch November 26, 2024 17:42

jagdish-15 restored the add-approach-bob branch November 26, 2024 17:56

jagdish-15 reopened this Nov 26, 2024

kahgoh reviewed Nov 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Adding approach for Bob #2861

Adding approach for Bob #2861

jagdish-15 commented Nov 9, 2024

kahgoh Nov 15, 2024

jagdish-15 Nov 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

kahgoh Nov 25, 2024

jagdish-15 commented Nov 18, 2024

kahgoh Nov 25, 2024

kahgoh Nov 25, 2024

kahgoh Nov 25, 2024

kahgoh Nov 25, 2024

kahgoh Nov 27, 2024

kahgoh Nov 27, 2024


		This approach simplifies the main method `hey` by breaking down each response condition into helper methods:

		1. Trimming the Input:

	- `if` Statements: Compact and straightforward, suited for smaller projects.
	- `if` Statements: Compact and straightforward.

Adding approach for Bob #2861

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Adding approach for Bob #2861

Conversation

jagdish-15 commented Nov 9, 2024

pull request

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jagdish-15 Nov 15, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jagdish-15 commented Nov 18, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jagdish-15 Nov 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading