Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @SnappyRiffs, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request addresses issue #197 by performing a significant refactoring within the Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request refactors the coralLevelTwo and coralLevelThree methods by extracting their common logic into a new coralLevelTwoThree helper method. This is a good change that reduces code duplication. However, the refactoring has introduced a minor regression where the command names for level 2 and 3 scoring are changed. My review includes suggestions to fix the command names to restore the original behavior and improve consistency.
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
markpete
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is still more opportunity for removing redundant code.
HINT: ipScore = () -> { return true; }
| .withName("Coral Level 3"); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public Command coralLevelTwo(BooleanSupplier score) { // same as L4 and L3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See if you can remove redundancy on this function too, by having it call the new routine.
HINT: ipScore = () -> { return true; }
| .withName("Coral Level 4"); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public Command coralLevelThree(BooleanSupplier score) { // same as L4 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This routine should be able to leverage the new shared code you wrote as well.
| .withName("Coral Level 2"); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public Command coralLevelOne(BooleanSupplier score) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should also be able to combine the two coralLevelOne Commands.
fixed issue #197-combined level two and level three into one function