Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 automated game testing (was: Release Rails 1.6.3 available)

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Ah OK.  StartRound and StartRound_1835 are very old, and I suppose these
static variables have so far been overlooked (in the past we had many more
static variables).
I'll give it another look tomorrow.

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:31 PM
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: [Rails-devel] 1835 automated game testing (was: Release Rails
1.6.3
> available)
> 
> This mail was sent out earlier today, but I never got it returned from the
list
> server. Please apologize if it turns it out to be double-posting for some.
> 
> Erik:
> the issue for the automated game testing is easy to find.
> 
> You define the two (state) variables turn and startRoundNumber as static
> variables in StartRound_1835.
> 
> Keep in mind that all Junit tests run in sequence in the same JVM: So
static
> variables carry over between games and the never get re-intialized between
> test games. In consequence for variants that adjust StartRound behavior
will
> behave weird during testruns.
> 
> So question is what was your reason to use static (class) variables
instead of
> standard (object) variables? I could only guess that the StartRound object
is
> not undo-safe, thus you used the static variables as a workaround. I do
not
> want submit this a fix, as long as I do not know your motivation there.
> 
> If I remove the static qualifier the games seem to run correctly, however
> some 1835 tests will be reported as failed, however this is most likely to
the
> fact that the stored report is wrong and the newly generated one is
correct.
> 
> I took the opportunity to copy the text of the e-mail that gave some
detailed
> instructions on the automated game text into the wiki.
> See
> http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/rails/index.php?title=Automated_g
> ame_testing
> 
> Stefan
> 
> A final remark:
> I do not understand is why the Rails engine does not reject the saved game
> file if the ordering of players in the save file is different to the one
in the
> game engine, but I have not debugged the whole process yet, as I expect to
> work everything correctly as soon as the static variables are removed.
> 
> 
> 
> On 02/14/2012 09:21 PM, Erik Vos wrote:
> >>> However the existing 1835 and a new test case I have added fail now.
> >>> This is most likely related to the Clemens variant change of player
> >>> priority and rerunning several 1835 in one instance, however this
> >>> usually indicates some probability that it is not undo-proof.
> >>>
> >>> So let us wait for you coming back to solve this jointly.
> >>
> >> I haven't looked at the non-standard 1835 variants for a long time,
> >> so
> > it's
> >> good to have a test case now.
> >> I only see 1835_NatDoubleShare failing, all other cases are OK.  Do
> >> you
> > have
> >> more failures?
> >
> > I don't understand why JUnit does things different from normal running.
> >
> > The report expects:
> >
> > BuysItemFor,T3,M5,80
> > FloatsWithCash,M5,80
> > BuysItemFor,T2,M1,80<===
> > FloatsWithCash,M1,80
> > BuysItemFor,T1,M3,80
> > FloatsWithCash,M3,80
> >
> > and that is exactly what happens in a normal run (extract from log):
> >
> > 2012-02-14 21:08:25 INFO   T3 buys M5 for 80M  (ReportBuffer addMessage
> 186)
> >
> > 2012-02-14 21:08:25 INFO   M5 floats and receives 80M  (ReportBuffer
> > addMessage 186)
> > 2012-02-14 21:08:25 INFO   T2 buys M1 for 80M  (ReportBuffer addMessage
> 186)
> > <===
> > 2012-02-14 21:08:25 INFO   M1 floats and receives 80M  (ReportBuffer
> > addMessage 186)
> > 2012-02-14 21:08:25 INFO   T1 buys M3 for 80M  (ReportBuffer addMessage
> 186)
> >
> > 2012-02-14 21:08:25 INFO   M3 floats and receives 80M  (ReportBuffer
> > addMessage 186)
> >
> > so I'm amazed that the JUnit report says that>>T1<<  has bought M3 in
> > its test run.
> >
> > junit.framework.ComparisonFailure: Reports differ in line 13
> > expected:<BuysItemFor,T[2],M1,80>  but was:<BuysItemFor,T[1],M1,80>
> >
> > where line 13 corresponds to the lines where I added arrows.
> >
> > I'm lost.
> >
> > Erik.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------- Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
> > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft
> > developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus
> > HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when
> you subscribe now!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing
> makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing
> computing to be delivered as a service.
> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel