Skip to content

Conversation

@arcturas1
Copy link
Collaborator

@arcturas1 arcturas1 commented Sep 17, 2017

I went a bit overboard and exceeded the scope of these issues. please carefully review the changes noted below and examine my source, as some things changed drastically.

#24 Ensure that Javadoc matches spec
Associated changes:

  1. class description:
  • added @see with link to project description
  • (personal preference) provided additional text providing clarification of authorship roles. Probably overkill, but noting who did what is I think valid acknowledgement, and Dr. Paul has not marked me off for doing so in this style for past projects.
  1. Constructor Summary: removed by creating private constructor which does nothing.

#31: Refactor Unlock Method
associated changes:

  1. renamed several variables
  2. Modified the main heuristic loop to enforce a single point of return
  • Created constants for Max cycles, max spins, default pattern, and alternative pattern
  • Added a nested for loop to run j "cycles" of i "spins"
  • Added code to alternate between peek patterns between cycles
  • Labelled the "unlockHeuristic" loop
  • removed return statement in heuristic loop; replaced with a break referring to the above label
  • modified the method to use the boolean value obtained from the most recent spin
  1. Changed the logging format to report success/failure as: "Unlock Successful: " + device lock state (answers question Format of trace #13, forcefully )
  • removed logging of final success from within the loop. The unlock success message is now unconditionally performed prior to returning values
  • modified unitTests to search for "true" and "false" within the trace instead of "SUCCESS" and" FAILED"

hdemarco4 and others added 2 commits September 16, 2017 21:40
@arcturas1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

not sure if I did this quite right, but I'll request that this pull request be merged with the master if y'all approve of the changes. Otherwise, I can make a commit that reduces the scope to just deal with the javadoc compliance.

@arcturas1 arcturas1 changed the title Addressing issues #24 and #31 Addressing issues #24 and #31 imposing an answer to #13 Sep 17, 2017
@rooftopsparrow
Copy link
Owner

rooftopsparrow commented Sep 17, 2017

I would really prefer that we split this MR up to just deal with Javadoc compliance, if you're able.
I'd also like to minimize impact to the main algorithm the day the deliverable is due.

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