Skip to content

Leap Analyzer Issue #260

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Apr 29, 2025
Merged

Leap Analyzer Issue #260

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
a842af8
first push for leap issue
jagdish-15 Apr 9, 2025
3734858
Adding new scenario and adding trailing newline
jagdish-15 Apr 13, 2025
5d8b7a2
ammending AnalyzerIntegrationTest.java and other test files
jagdish-15 Apr 13, 2025
6e9ccf1
Changing approved txt
jagdish-15 Apr 14, 2025
2287c87
Removing temporary files
jagdish-15 Apr 19, 2025
49717be
Adding trailing newlines
jagdish-15 Apr 19, 2025
3da13cd
Logic ammendements for ternary scenario
jagdish-15 Apr 26, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
73 changes: 73 additions & 0 deletions .approval_tests_temp/.approved_files.log
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.salarycalculator.ExemplarSolution.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.salarycalculator.NoReuseBonusForProductsSold.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.salarycalculator.NoReuseBonusMultiplier.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.salarycalculator.NoReuseSalaryMultiplier.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.salarycalculator.NotReusingMethodsAtAll.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.salarycalculator.NotUsingTernaryOperatorsAndNotReusingMethods.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.salarycalculator.NotUsingTernaryOperatorsAtAll.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.salarycalculator.NotUsingTernaryOperatorsOnBonusMultiplier.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.salarycalculator.NotUsingTernaryOperatorsOnFinalSalary.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.salarycalculator.NotUsingTernaryOperatorsOnSalaryMultiplier.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.loglevels.ExemplarSolution.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.loglevels.HardCodingLogLevelsUpperCase.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.loglevels.HardCodingLogLevelsLowerCase.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.loglevels.NoReuseLogLevel.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.loglevels.NoReuseMessage.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.loglevels.NoReuseOfBothMethods.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.loglevels.NotUsingExpectedMethodsOnLogLevel.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.loglevels.NotUsingExpectedMethodsOnMessage.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.loglevels.NotUsingExpectedMethodsOnLogLevelAndMessage.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.loglevels.UsingStringFormat.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.wizardsandwarriors.ExemplarSolution.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.wizardsandwarriors.ExemplarSolutionWithTodoComments.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.wizardsandwarriors.NotUsingOverrideAnnotations.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.wizardsandwarriors.UsingAditionalEqualsMethodOverrided.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.global.AnySolutionWithMainMethod.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.global.AnySolutionWithPrintStatements.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.twofer.HardCodedTestCases.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.twofer.Optimal.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.twofer.OptimalNoTernary.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.twofer.UsesMultipleReturns.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.twofer.UsesStringFormat.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.annalynsinfiltration.Optimal.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.annalynsinfiltration.ComparingBooleanWithLiteral.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.annalynsinfiltration.ReturningBooleanLiteral.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.annalynsinfiltration.UsingIfStatement.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.annalynsinfiltration.UsingRedundantParenthesis.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.lasagna.ExemplarSolution.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.lasagna.ExemplarSolutionWithTodoComments.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.lasagna.NoReuseOfBothMethods.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.lasagna.NoReuseOfExpectedMinutesInOven.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.lasagna.NoReuseOfPreparationTimeInMinutes.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.leap.HardCodedTestCases.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.leap.OptimalSolution.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.leap.OptimalTernary.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.leap.UsingGregorianCalendar.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.leap.UsingIfStatements.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.leap.UsingJavaTime.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.leap.UsingTernary.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.leap.UsingTooManyChecks.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.hamming.ConstructorTooLong.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.hamming.MethodTooLong.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.hamming.MustUseCharAtOrCodePointAt.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.hamming.NestedCalculation.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.hamming.NestedValidation.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.hamming.OptimalWithCalculationDelegatedFromConstructor.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.hamming.OptimalWithCalculationDelegatedFromGetHammingDistance.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.hamming.OptimalWithCalculationInGetHammingDistance.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.hamming.OptimalWithValidationMethod.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.hamming.UsesCharacterLiterals.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.hamming.UsesStreamReduce.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.needforspeed.ExemplarSolution.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.needforspeed.UsingForLoop.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.needforspeed.UsingIfStatement.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.needforspeed.UsingTernary.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.needforspeed.UsingWhileLoop.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.secrets.ExemplarSolution.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.secrets.NotUsingBitwiseAnd.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.secrets.NotUsingBitwiseNot.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.secrets.NotUsingBitwiseOr.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.secrets.NotUsingBitwiseXor.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.secrets.NotUsingUnsignedRightShift.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.secrets.UsingIfStatement.approved.txt
C:\Programming\Exercism\java-analyzer\src\test\resources\analyzer\AnalyzerIntegrationTest.secrets.NotUsingAnyOfTheExpectedOperators.approved.txt
Empty file added .approval_tests_temp/.failed_comparison.log
View file
Open in desktop
Empty file.
26 changes: 26 additions & 0 deletions .approval_tests_temp/approve_all.bat
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
@echo off

FOR /F "usebackq delims=" %%L IN ("..\.approval_tests_temp\.failed_comparison.log") DO (
REM Store the entire line in an environment variable named LINE
SET "LINE=%%L"
REM Call a subroutine to parse and handle the line
CALL :ProcessLine
)

GOTO :EOF

:ProcessLine
REM Enable delayed expansion so we can safely manipulate LINE
SETLOCAL ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSION

REM Replace " -> " with a pipe character so we can split easily
SET "LINE=!LINE: -> =|!"

REM Now split the line on the pipe and capture each side
FOR /F "tokens=1,2 delims=|" %%A IN ("!LINE!") DO (
ECHO Moving "%%~A" to "%%~B"
MOVE "%%~A" "%%~B"
)

ENDLOCAL
GOTO :EOF
67 changes: 67 additions & 0 deletions .approval_tests_temp/detect_and_remove_abandoned.bat
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
@echo off
setlocal enabledelayedexpansion

REM Define paths
set "SCRIPT_DIR=%~dp0"
set "LOG_FILE=%SCRIPT_DIR%.approved_files.log"
set "BASE_DIR=%SCRIPT_DIR%.."

REM Check if the log file exists
if not exist "%LOG_FILE%" (
echo Error: Log file .approved_files.log not found in script directory.
exit /b 1
)

REM Find all *.approved.* files recursively from the base directory
echo Scanning for approval files in base directory: %BASE_DIR%...
for /r "%BASE_DIR%" %%f in (*.approved.*) do (
call :ResolvePath "%%f" resolved_path
set "ALL_APPROVAL_FILES=!ALL_APPROVAL_FILES!%%f;"
)

REM Resolve paths in .approved_files.log
echo Resolving paths from .approved_files.log...
set "RESOLVED_USED_FILES="
for /f "usebackq delims=" %%l in ("%LOG_FILE%") do (
call :ResolvePath "%%l" resolved_path
set "RESOLVED_USED_FILES=!RESOLVED_USED_FILES!!resolved_path!;"
)

REM Compare files and identify abandoned ones
echo Identifying abandoned approval files...
set "ABANDONED_FILES="
for %%f in (!ALL_APPROVAL_FILES:;= !) do (
call :ResolvePath "%%f" resolved_path
if "!RESOLVED_USED_FILES:;=!" neq "!RESOLVED_USED_FILES:;=%%resolved_path%%;!" (
set "ABANDONED_FILES=!ABANDONED_FILES!!resolved_path!;"
)
)

REM Display abandoned files
if "!ABANDONED_FILES!"=="" (
echo No abandoned approval files found.
exit /b 0
)

echo The following approval files are abandoned:
for %%f in (!ABANDONED_FILES:;= !) do (
echo %%f
)

REM Prompt for deletion
set /p "RESPONSE=Would you like to delete these files? (y/n): "
if /i "!RESPONSE!"=="y" (
for %%f in (!ABANDONED_FILES:;= !) do (
del /q "%%f" && echo Deleted: %%f
)
echo All abandoned files deleted.
) else (
echo No files were deleted.
)

exit /b 0

REM Function to resolve paths
:ResolvePath
for %%i in (%1) do set "%2=%%~fi"
exit /b
18 changes: 18 additions & 0 deletions src/main/java/analyzer/exercises/leap/AvoidIfStatements.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
package analyzer.exercises.leap;

import analyzer.Comment;

/**
* @see <a href="https://github.com/exercism/website-copy/blob/main/analyzer-comments/java/leap/avoid_if_statements.md">Markdown Template</a>
*/
class AvoidIfStatements extends Comment {
@Override
public String getKey() {
return "java.leap.avoid_if_statements";
}

@Override
public Type getType() {
return Type.ACTIONABLE;
}
}
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions ...exercises/leap/AvoidConditionalLogic.java → ...exercises/leap/AvoidRedundantTernary.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -3,12 +3,12 @@
import analyzer.Comment;

/**
* @see <a href="https://github.com/exercism/website-copy/blob/main/analyzer-comments/java/leap/avoid_conditional_logic.md">Markdown Template</a>
* @see <a href="https://github.com/exercism/website-copy/blob/main/analyzer-comments/java/leap/avoid_redundant_ternary.md">Markdown Template</a>
*/
class AvoidConditionalLogic extends Comment {
class AvoidRedundantTernary extends Comment {
@Override
public String getKey() {
return "java.leap.avoid_conditional_logic";
return "java.leap.avoid_redundant_ternary";
}

@Override
Expand Down
6 changes: 4 additions & 2 deletions src/main/java/analyzer/exercises/leap/LeapAnalyzer.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -70,13 +70,15 @@ public void visit(IntegerLiteralExpr node, OutputCollector output) {

@Override
public void visit(IfStmt node, OutputCollector output) {
output.addComment(new AvoidConditionalLogic());
output.addComment(new AvoidIfStatements());
super.visit(node, output);
}

@Override
public void visit(ConditionalExpr node, OutputCollector output) {
output.addComment(new AvoidConditionalLogic());
if (node.getThenExpr().isBooleanLiteralExpr() || node.getElseExpr().isBooleanLiteralExpr()) {
output.addComment(new AvoidRedundantTernary());
}
Copy link
Member

@kahgoh kahgoh Apr 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be checking if both sides are boolean literals? If only one side is a boolean, I'd assume the other side is some boolean expression (e.g. (year % 400 == 0) ? true : (year % 100 == 0) ? false : (year % 4 == 0)).

Copy link
Member Author

@jagdish-15 jagdish-15 Apr 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep, this is checking whether either the then or else expression is a boolean literal. If either one is, it triggers the action. In the example you shared, the else expression is a ternary while the then is a boolean literal — so the condition still passes because we're checking both sides. But the opposite case (where then is a ternary and else is a boolean literal) is also possible, which is exactly why I made sure to check both!

Let me know if I’m thinking in the right direction here.

Copy link
Member

@kahgoh kahgoh Apr 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, I was trying to figure out whether line 79 should be (notice the && instead of ||):

if (node.getThenExpr().isBooleanLiteralExpr() && node.getElseExpr().isBooleanLiteralExpr()) {

I noticed the test for this case uses the expression:

(year % 400 == 0) ? true : (year % 100 == 0) ? false : (year % 4 == 0) ? true : false

But the proposed comment is:

Try returning the conditions directly instead of returning boolean literals (true and false).

Are we trying to say don't use a ternary expression to just return true / false (as in the (year % 4 == 0) ? true : false part)? I don't think it would make sense if it caught (year % 100 == 0) ? false : (year % 4 == 0) because the else part is another expression.

Another possibility is that we tell the students that it can be solved with just one ternary expression (instead of saying don't use boolean literals). This could be done by checking if there is more than one ternary expression (in a similar way to how we already check if there are more than 3 checks).

Copy link
Member Author

@jagdish-15 jagdish-15 Apr 23, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes sense. We can change this message:

# avoid redundant ternary

Try returning the conditions directly instead of returning boolean literals (`true` and `false`).

to something like:

# avoid redundant ternary

Consider using a single ternary operator for the most efficient solution.

But then the title would need to be changed too, right? If it does, let me know what I should rename it to!

I would suggest the title to be something like "avoid multiple ternary".

Additionally, we’d need to update the logic to check that the solution uses only one ternary. The current implementation should still work, but this approach of checking the number of ternary operators makes more sense for the message and improves the overall understandability of the system.

The name of the scenario would also be changed to UsingMultipleTernary instead of UsingRedundantTernary, which was discussed before.

I’ll check this out over the weekend, if you give the go-ahead for this approach!

Copy link
Member Author

@jagdish-15 jagdish-15 Apr 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, let me know if I should make these changes in this PR itself or create a follow-up PR for the rest, as @SleeplessByte mentioned!

Copy link
Member Author

@jagdish-15 jagdish-15 Apr 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, that makes sense. Sometimes we do use ternary operators to return boolean literals directly — for example:
(year % 100 == 0) ? false : (year % 4 == 0)
Even though this specific case wouldn’t be valid here, it shows that returning boolean literals via ternary operators isn’t always wrong.

So instead of telling students to avoid using ternaries to return boolean literals in general, it’s better to guide them with something more exercise-specific, like saying “this can be solved using just one ternary.” That’s more accurate and helpful in context.

Let me know if I’m on the right track and if this is what you meant!

Copy link
Member

@kahgoh kahgoh Apr 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes sense. We can change this message:

# avoid redundant ternary

Try returning the conditions directly instead of returning boolean literals (`true` and `false`).

to something like:

# avoid redundant ternary

Consider using a single ternary operator for the most efficient solution.

But then the title would need to be changed too, right? If it does, let me know what I should rename it to!

I would suggest the title to be something like "avoid multiple ternary".

Yes, to all this! I think the message could be tweaked but we can worry about that in the website-copy PR.

Additionally, we’d need to update the logic to check that the solution uses only one ternary. The current implementation should still work, but this approach of checking the number of ternary operators makes more sense for the message and improves the overall understandability of the system.

Yes, that's right. I think you can do something like node.findAll(ConditionalExpr.class) to work out how many ternary usages there are.

The name of the scenario would also be changed to UsingMultipleTernary instead of UsingRedundantTernary, which was discussed before.

Yes, I agree we should update the name to match.

Also, let me know if I should make these changes in this PR itself or create a follow-up PR for the rest,

The change to "avoid multiple ternary" should be in this PR because this is the PR introduces the boolean literal check that would need to be changed.

Let me know if I’m on the right track and if this is what you meant!

Yes, to both!

Copy link
Member Author

@jagdish-15 jagdish-15 Apr 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, I'll make the amendments over the weekend!

super.visit(node, output);
}

Expand Down
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions src/test/java/analyzer/AnalyzerIntegrationTest.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ void lasagna(String scenario) throws IOException {
@ValueSource(strings = {
"HardCodedTestCases",
"OptimalSolution",
"OptimalTernary",
"UsingGregorianCalendar",
"UsingIfStatements",
"UsingJavaTime",
Expand Down
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions src/test/resources/analyzer/AnalyzerIntegrationTest.leap.OptimalTernary.approved.txt
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
{
"comments": []
}
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/test/resources/analyzer/AnalyzerIntegrationTest.leap.UsingIfStatements.approved.txt
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
{
"comments": [
{
"comment": "java.leap.avoid_conditional_logic",
"comment": "java.leap.avoid_if_statements",
"params": {},
"type": "actionable"
},
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/test/resources/analyzer/AnalyzerIntegrationTest.leap.UsingTernary.approved.txt
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
{
"comments": [
{
"comment": "java.leap.avoid_conditional_logic",
"comment": "java.leap.avoid_redundant_ternary",
"params": {},
"type": "actionable"
},
Expand Down
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions src/test/resources/scenarios/leap/OptimalTernary.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
class Leap {
boolean isLeapYear(int year) {
return (year % 100 == 0) ? (year % 400 == 0) : (year % 4 == 0);
Copy link
Member

@kahgoh kahgoh Apr 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks great. However, it just occurred to me we might also get an if statement version of this solution. For example:

if (year % 100 == 0) {
  return year % 400 == 0;
} else {
  return year % 4 == 0;
}

I think the analyzer will currently raise a comment about using the if statement. Do you think we should still be telling students to avoid if statement in this case?

Copy link
Member Author

@jagdish-15 jagdish-15 Apr 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On one hand, I understand that it’s just a different way to express the same logic we already added using a ternary operator. But at the same time, it feels like a bit of overkill—especially when the same logic can be written in a single line using a ternary or logical operators.

I do have one suggestion—I'm not sure if this is even possible, but just putting it out there: does Exercism support different types of analyzer comments? Like maybe a way to leave a non-critical or informational-only comment for cases like this, where the solution is perfectly valid but there might be a more concise alternative? I’m not sure what the official terminology is (just guessing here), but something like this could be a nice middle ground.

Copy link
Member

@IsaacG IsaacG Apr 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should the optional solutions be in a dig deeper article vs the analyzer?

Copy link
Member

@kahgoh kahgoh Apr 21, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, let's leave it as it is currently.

I'm not sure if this is even possible, but just putting it out there: does Exercism support different types of analyzer comments?

To answer this one - Yes, there are different types of comments (essential, actionable, informative or celeboratory). The if statement comment is currently "actionable".

Should the optional solutions be in a dig deeper article vs the analyzer?

There is already an approach for this.

Copy link
Member Author

@jagdish-15 jagdish-15 Apr 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, let's leave it as it is for now.

Sounds good!

But if we do want to address it before the "Dig Deeper" section, one idea is to add an informative comment for optimal if statements, and keep the usual actionable feedback for non-optimal ones. That way, we're still guiding the user in the right direction.

We can check if an if statement is optimal by ensuring it doesn't return any boolean literals, and the "not more than 3 conditions" rule is already being handled by another method—similar to how we validate ternary expressions.

Let me know what you think and how you'd like me to proceed with this!

Copy link
Member Author

@jagdish-15 jagdish-15 Apr 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@kahgoh @SleeplessByte
Should I raise another PR for the "informative" road?

Copy link
Member

@kahgoh kahgoh May 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jagdish-15, I think there is nothing else to change because we're already raising this comment for the situation:

Consider converting the if statement(s) into a single expression using logical operators (&&, ||) or ternary operators.

Admittedly, the comment is "actionable" instead of "informative", but I think that's fine.

Copy link
Member Author

@jagdish-15 jagdish-15 May 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I meant that we should raise a comment only when the if statement isn't optimal. In this case, we could introduce a separate scenario like OptimalIfStatement, because as you mentioned, the following code:

if (year % 100 == 0) {
  return year % 400 == 0;
} else {
  return year % 4 == 0;
}

uses the same logic as the OptimalTernaryOperator, it's just written using an if-else instead of a ternary expression.

Copy link
Member

@kahgoh kahgoh May 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm still thinking to leave it as it is. As far as I know, it has adding a similar for quite some time now and I'm not aware of it being a "problem". Essentially, I'm not entirely convinced that it is something that should be changed (even though I mentioned it earlier).

Copy link
Member Author

@jagdish-15 jagdish-15 May 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure!

}
}
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/test/resources/scenarios/leap/UsingGregorianCalendar.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -6,4 +6,4 @@ boolean isLeapYear(int year) {
var calendar = new GregorianCalendar(Calendar.ALL_STYLES);
return calendar.isLeapYear(year);
}
}
}
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/test/resources/scenarios/leap/UsingIfStatements.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -5,4 +5,4 @@ boolean isLeapYear(int year) {
if (year % 4 == 0) return true;
return false;
}
}
}
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/test/resources/scenarios/leap/UsingTernary.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,4 +2,4 @@ class Leap {
boolean isLeapYear(int year) {
return (year % 400 == 0) ? true : (year % 100 == 0) ? false : (year % 4 == 0) ? true : false;
}
}
}