rails-devel — List for discussion of Rails development

Re: [Rails-devel] Output of failed tests (a3aed4)

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 8:01 AM
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: [Rails-devel] Output of failed tests (a3aed4)
> 
> Erik,
> I have added the function.
> 
> I took the freedom to change the details a little to my favored approach.
> 
> If a test fails the failed report is created in the same directory put
with a
> different extension (.failed).
> If a test runs correctly again, the failed report is automatically
deleted.
> 
> The reason for the change is that it is easier to fire up the diff tool
(at least for
> me) and it avoids creating new directories which are usually empty.

However, it thwarts my intended usage, because I now have to move and rename
the failed files. Well, I guess I can create  my own version.

Erik.
 
> Stefan
> 
> 
> On Thursday, August 04, 2011 04:19:12 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> > Stefan,
> >
> > I would prefer just a copy of the (new) report, preferably saved in a
> > separate directory somewhere in the test tree (for instance
> > test/data/newreports). Name should be identical to the 'old' report
name.
> > This way I can load these directories as a whole into a graphical tool
> > such as WinMerge that gives a quick overview of the (non-)identity of
> > all reports, and allows a side-by-side comparison of the two versions
> > of the each report.
> >
> > Erik.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 7:52 AM
> > > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Automated testing (7e4acf)
> > >
> > > Erik:
> > > fixed the failing tests. The issue was that I did not clear NDC.key
> > > after
> >
> > each
> >
> > > test so it still contained a reference due to the previous
> > > game(manager)
> >
> > and
> >
> > > thus confused the mechanism of the initial queue of the report buffer.
> > >
> > > I do not save the test reports currently, but that was on my
> > > wishlist
> >
> > anyhow.
> >
> > > Do you prefer simply a copy of the test report or a diff-output to
> > > the expected report which would be easy to create using a java diff
> library?
> > >
> > > Stefan
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 02:59:35 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> > > > See below.
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the failed tests from your phase changes they show
> > > > > that
> > > > > A) Phase names in 1856 changed
> > > >
> > > > Ah yes, I should have reported that. With my latest commit I have
> > > > also renamed all (distinct) phases after the last bought train,
> > > > where that wasn't the case, deferring the "real" (but not always
> > > > usable) phase names to the new "realName" attribute that I have
> > > > added recently (and is now shown in square brackets in the UI).  I
> > > > think I now did 1856 and 1870,
> > > > 1835 had been done before (and 1880 by Martin). Not done 1825.
> > > >
> > > > > B) All messages "train obsolete" were removed from 1830_A (C&R
> > >
> > > variant).
> > >
> > > > > C) All messages "train rusted" were removed from both games 1889
> > > > > and 18AL_A.
> > > > >
> > > > > D) 18EU_A surprisingly kept the train rusted messages, but lost
> > > > > the
> > > >
> > > > message
> > > >
> > > > > "TrainsAvailable,P".
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems that A) was an intended change, for B) to D) I am not
> > > > > so
> >
> > sure.
> >
> > > > > Maybe you should check this.
> > > >
> > > > Nothing was intentional, I had just forgotten to put these report
> > > > lines into the new code.
> > > > The message "All X-trains are sold out, Y-trains now available"
> > > > wasn't even localised, and had to be split into two lines, because
> > > > the second half is now displayed on a separate line in *all* cases
> > > > where a new type becomes available. So I have added a new
> "TrainsSoldOut" entry.
> > > >
> > > > To check any differences, I would like to be able to compare the
> > > > old and new TE_ST reports line by line in a tool like WinMerge.
> > > > Are the new reports saved anywhere?  If not, wouldn't that be a
> > > > useful addition, or have you already made that possible in another
> way?
> > > >
> > > > Erik
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ----
> > > > -----
> > > > --- BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
> > > > The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> > > > Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> > > > Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > > Rai...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > - --
> >
> > > BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA The
> > > must- attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> > > Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> > > Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > Rai...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > --- BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA The
> > must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> > Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> > Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA The must-
> attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

[Rails-devel] Output of failed tests (a3aed4)

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Erik,
I have added the function.

I took the freedom to change the details a little to my favored approach. 

If a test fails the failed report is created in the same directory put with a 
different extension (.failed).
If a test runs correctly again, the failed report is automatically deleted.

The reason for the change is that it is easier to fire up the diff tool (at 
least for me) and it avoids creating new directories which are usually empty.

Stefan


On Thursday, August 04, 2011 04:19:12 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> Stefan,
> 
> I would prefer just a copy of the (new) report, preferably saved in a
> separate directory somewhere in the test tree (for instance
> test/data/newreports). Name should be identical to the 'old' report name.
> This way I can load these directories as a whole into a graphical tool such
> as WinMerge that gives a quick overview of the (non-)identity of all
> reports, and allows a side-by-side comparison of the two versions of the
> each report.
> 
> Erik.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 7:52 AM
> > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Automated testing (7e4acf)
> > 
> > Erik:
> > fixed the failing tests. The issue was that I did not clear NDC.key after
> 
> each
> 
> > test so it still contained a reference due to the previous game(manager)
> 
> and
> 
> > thus confused the mechanism of the initial queue of the report buffer.
> > 
> > I do not save the test reports currently, but that was on my wishlist
> 
> anyhow.
> 
> > Do you prefer simply a copy of the test report or a diff-output to the
> > expected report which would be easy to create using a java diff library?
> > 
> > Stefan
> > 
> > On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 02:59:35 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> > > See below.
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > > > 
> > > > Regarding the failed tests from your phase changes they show that
> > > > A) Phase names in 1856 changed
> > > 
> > > Ah yes, I should have reported that. With my latest commit I have also
> > > renamed all (distinct) phases after the last bought train, where that
> > > wasn't the case, deferring the "real" (but not always usable) phase
> > > names to the new "realName" attribute that I have added recently (and
> > > is now shown in square brackets in the UI).  I think I now did 1856
> > > and 1870,
> > > 1835 had been done before (and 1880 by Martin). Not done 1825.
> > > 
> > > > B) All messages "train obsolete" were removed from 1830_A (C&R
> > 
> > variant).
> > 
> > > > C) All messages "train rusted" were removed from both games 1889 and
> > > > 18AL_A.
> > > > 
> > > > D) 18EU_A surprisingly kept the train rusted messages, but lost the
> > > 
> > > message
> > > 
> > > > "TrainsAvailable,P".
> > > > 
> > > > It seems that A) was an intended change, for B) to D) I am not so
> 
> sure.
> 
> > > > Maybe you should check this.
> > > 
> > > Nothing was intentional, I had just forgotten to put these report
> > > lines into the new code.
> > > The message "All X-trains are sold out, Y-trains now available" wasn't
> > > even localised, and had to be split into two lines, because the second
> > > half is now displayed on a separate line in *all* cases where a new
> > > type becomes available. So I have added a new "TrainsSoldOut" entry.
> > > 
> > > To check any differences, I would like to be able to compare the old
> > > and new TE_ST reports line by line in a tool like WinMerge.  Are the
> > > new reports saved anywhere?  If not, wouldn't that be a useful
> > > addition, or have you already made that possible in another way?
> > > 
> > > Erik
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -----
> > > --- BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA The
> > > must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> > > Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> > > Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > Rai...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> - --
> 
> > BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA The must-
> > attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> > Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> > Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
> The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Some refactoring

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

It's the precursor of RunGame, and I agree that it is redundant and can be
removed.
Even I have recently stopped using it... :-)

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 7:54 AM
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Some refactoring
> 
> I suggest removing rails.test with only one class in it and move that
class to
> test or simple deletion of the class, which seems redundant.
> Any objections?
> Stefan
> 
> On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11:18:05 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> > Done the minor tools/util refactoring mentioned below.
> >
> > Erik.
> >
> > > > As for packaging, I would prefer to reserve rails.util for Rails
> > > > classes only, and put all external main programs into tools.  That
> > > > would mean that ListAndFixSavedFiles should move from rails.util
> > > > to tools.
> > >
> > > Any objections?
> > >
> > > > I just noticed that we have TWO Util classes, one in rails.util
> > > > and one in tools.  Does anyone know a good reason for that
> duplication?
> > > > Otherwise I would propose to merge the two into rails.util.Util.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > --- BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA The
> > must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> > Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> > Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA The must-
> attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Automated testing (7e4acf)

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

Stefan,

I would prefer just a copy of the (new) report, preferably saved in a
separate directory somewhere in the test tree (for instance
test/data/newreports). Name should be identical to the 'old' report name.
This way I can load these directories as a whole into a graphical tool such
as WinMerge that gives a quick overview of the (non-)identity of all
reports, and allows a side-by-side comparison of the two versions of the
each report.

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 7:52 AM
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Automated testing (7e4acf)
> 
> Erik:
> fixed the failing tests. The issue was that I did not clear NDC.key after
each
> test so it still contained a reference due to the previous game(manager)
and
> thus confused the mechanism of the initial queue of the report buffer.
> 
> I do not save the test reports currently, but that was on my wishlist
anyhow.
> Do you prefer simply a copy of the test report or a diff-output to the
> expected report which would be easy to create using a java diff library?
> 
> Stefan
> 
> On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 02:59:35 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> > See below.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > >
> > > Regarding the failed tests from your phase changes they show that
> > > A) Phase names in 1856 changed
> >
> > Ah yes, I should have reported that. With my latest commit I have also
> > renamed all (distinct) phases after the last bought train, where that
> > wasn't the case, deferring the "real" (but not always usable) phase
> > names to the new "realName" attribute that I have added recently (and
> > is now shown in square brackets in the UI).  I think I now did 1856
> > and 1870,
> > 1835 had been done before (and 1880 by Martin). Not done 1825.
> >
> > > B) All messages "train obsolete" were removed from 1830_A (C&R
> variant).
> > >
> > > C) All messages "train rusted" were removed from both games 1889 and
> > > 18AL_A.
> > >
> > > D) 18EU_A surprisingly kept the train rusted messages, but lost the
> >
> > message
> >
> > > "TrainsAvailable,P".
> > >
> > > It seems that A) was an intended change, for B) to D) I am not so
sure.
> > > Maybe you should check this.
> >
> > Nothing was intentional, I had just forgotten to put these report
> > lines into the new code.
> > The message "All X-trains are sold out, Y-trains now available" wasn't
> > even localised, and had to be split into two lines, because the second
> > half is now displayed on a separate line in *all* cases where a new
> > type becomes available. So I have added a new "TrainsSoldOut" entry.
> >
> > To check any differences, I would like to be able to compare the old
> > and new TE_ST reports line by line in a tool like WinMerge.  Are the
> > new reports saved anywhere?  If not, wouldn't that be a useful
> > addition, or have you already made that possible in another way?
> >
> > Erik
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > --- BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA The
> > must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> > Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> > Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA The must-
> attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Some refactoring

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

I suggest removing rails.test with only one class in it and move that class
to test or simple deletion of the class, which seems redundant.
Any objections?
Stefan

On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11:18:05 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> Done the minor tools/util refactoring mentioned below.
> 
> Erik.
> 
> > > As for packaging, I would prefer to reserve rails.util for Rails
> > > classes only, and put all external main programs into tools.  That
> > > would mean that ListAndFixSavedFiles should move from rails.util to
> > > tools.
> > 
> > Any objections?
> > 
> > > I just noticed that we have TWO Util classes, one in rails.util and
> > > one in tools.  Does anyone know a good reason for that duplication?
> > > Otherwise I would propose to merge the two into rails.util.Util.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
> The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Automated testing (7e4acf)

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Erik:
fixed the failing tests. The issue was that I did not clear NDC.key after each 
test so it still contained a reference due to the previous game(manager) and 
thus confused the mechanism of the initial queue of the report buffer.

I do not save the test reports currently, but that was on my wishlist anyhow.
Do you prefer simply a copy of the test report or a diff-output to the 
expected report which would be easy to create using a java diff library?

Stefan

On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 02:59:35 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> See below.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > 
> > Regarding the failed tests from your phase changes they show that
> > A) Phase names in 1856 changed
> 
> Ah yes, I should have reported that. With my latest commit I have also
> renamed all (distinct) phases after the last bought train, where that
> wasn't the case, deferring the "real" (but not always usable) phase names
> to the new "realName" attribute that I have added recently (and is now
> shown in square brackets in the UI).  I think I now did 1856 and 1870,
> 1835 had been done before (and 1880 by Martin). Not done 1825.
> 
> > B) All messages "train obsolete" were removed from 1830_A (C&R variant).
> > 
> > C) All messages "train rusted" were removed from both games 1889 and
> > 18AL_A.
> > 
> > D) 18EU_A surprisingly kept the train rusted messages, but lost the
> 
> message
> 
> > "TrainsAvailable,P".
> > 
> > It seems that A) was an intended change, for B) to D) I am not so sure.
> > Maybe you should check this.
> 
> Nothing was intentional, I had just forgotten to put these report lines
> into the new code.
> The message "All X-trains are sold out, Y-trains now available" wasn't even
> localised, and had to be split into two lines, because the second half is
> now displayed on a separate line in *all* cases where a new type becomes
> available. So I have added a new "TrainsSoldOut" entry.
> 
> To check any differences, I would like to be able to compare the old and
> new TE_ST reports line by line in a tool like WinMerge.  Are the new
> reports saved anywhere?  If not, wouldn't that be a useful addition, or
> have you already made that possible in another way?
> 
> Erik
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
> The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

[Rails-devel] Some refactoring

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

Done the minor tools/util refactoring mentioned below.

Erik.

> > As for packaging, I would prefer to reserve rails.util for Rails
> > classes only, and put all external main programs into tools.  That
> > would mean that ListAndFixSavedFiles should move from rails.util to tools.
> Any objections?
> >
> > I just noticed that we have TWO Util classes, one in rails.util and
> > one in tools.  Does anyone know a good reason for that duplication?
> > Otherwise I would propose to merge the two into rails.util.Util.

Re: [Rails-devel] Automated testing

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

See below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
 
> Regarding the failed tests from your phase changes they show that
> A) Phase names in 1856 changed

Ah yes, I should have reported that. With my latest commit I have also
renamed all (distinct) phases after the last bought train, where that wasn't
the case, deferring the "real" (but not always usable) phase names to the
new "realName" attribute that I have added recently (and is now shown in
square brackets in the UI).  I think I now did 1856 and 1870, 1835 had been
done before (and 1880 by Martin). Not done 1825.
 
> B) All messages "train obsolete" were removed from 1830_A (C&R variant).
> 
> C) All messages "train rusted" were removed from both games 1889 and
> 18AL_A.
> 
> D) 18EU_A surprisingly kept the train rusted messages, but lost the
message
> "TrainsAvailable,P".
> 
> It seems that A) was an intended change, for B) to D) I am not so sure.
> Maybe you should check this.

Nothing was intentional, I had just forgotten to put these report lines into
the new code.
The message "All X-trains are sold out, Y-trains now available" wasn't even
localised, and had to be split into two lines, because the second half is
now displayed on a separate line in *all* cases where a new type becomes
available. So I have added a new "TrainsSoldOut" entry.

To check any differences, I would like to be able to compare the old and new
TE_ST reports line by line in a tool like WinMerge.  Are the new reports
saved anywhere?  If not, wouldn't that be a useful addition, or have you
already made that possible in another way?

Erik

Re: [Rails-devel] 1889 game fails

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Erik:
I tried fetch/pull from the command line and that worked. It did NOT work from 
inside Eclipse. 

Before the successful fetch/pull also the push failed inside Eclipse (which 
makes sense). So I have decided to prefer to use git from the command.

Actually this was my preferred way with subversion for my daily work, but with 
Eclipse it did not work that way.

Beside that I really like git (and the ideas behind a decentralized system).

After the fetch the 1889 game works as intended.

I also added and pushed your test games (under test/data/test). I have not 
added them to the list in the wiki so far.

The tests now run without failure (as I have define the current reports as 
valid), except two games, that omit the first line of the game version.
Most likely this has something to do that for the tests the run in sequence in 
the same JVM and those two games run immediately behind an identical game 
version (1830 or 1889). I suspect a similar cause like the static class 
variables, but this needs more checking. And this did not happen before Brett 
started to refactor the xml reading/game initialization code.

Stefan



On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11:01:00 am Erik Vos wrote:
> I pushed, but what?
> 
> Both my current master and origin/master have this code in 1889/Game.xml:
>     <TrainType name="6" majorStops="6" cost="630" quantity="2">
>           <NewPhase phaseName="6"/>
>           <IfOption name="WithOptional6Train" value="yes">
>                 <Attributes quantity="3"/>
>           </IfOption>
>      </TrainType>
> 
> Which fixed the problem (for me). You don't see that code?
> The fix originally was in commit '1048c3' named "All train types now have a
> default 'quantity'".  Strange enough that commit is not in the thread
> leading to 'master' in my History View.
> On the other hand, the master has that mysterious "Merge branch 'master' of
> ..." commit that shows my complete SSL login (can that be changed or
> removed?).
> 
> What did I do wrong?  I did the fixing in a separate branch that I later
> merged it into master, or that is what I thought I did at the time.
> It seems I still haven't completely mastered the art of merging in Git....
> 
> Erik.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:24 AM
> > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] 1889 game fails
> > 
> > Erik:
> > this game still fails.
> > However there was no commit of yours pushed since db9eb8.
> > Maybe you forgot to push?
> > Stefan
> > 
> > On Monday, August 01, 2011 05:53:32 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> > > The '6' train had no quantity because the Optional6Train option was
> > > not set, i.e. it was neither "yes" nor "no".
> > > 
> > > I have checked all games for the presence of a default quantity (and
> > > removed any redundant non-overriding option values).
> > > 
> > > This saved game should now work.
> > > 
> > > Erik.
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 7:29 AM
> > > > To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> > > > Subject: [Rails-devel] 1889 game fails
> > > > 
> > > > Erik,
> > > > one of the 1889 test files fails with an configuration error.
> > > > It seems that this is related to the new train management.
> > > > Could you check this?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Stefan
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> > > --- Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> > > Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> > > Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > Rai...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> - --
> 
> > BlackBerry&reg; DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA The must-
> > attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> > Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> > Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- BlackBerry&reg; DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
> The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] 1889 game fails

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

I pushed, but what?

Both my current master and origin/master have this code in 1889/Game.xml:
    <TrainType name="6" majorStops="6" cost="630" quantity="2">
          <NewPhase phaseName="6"/>
          <IfOption name="WithOptional6Train" value="yes">
                <Attributes quantity="3"/>
          </IfOption>
     </TrainType>

Which fixed the problem (for me). You don't see that code?
The fix originally was in commit '1048c3' named "All train types now have a
default 'quantity'".  Strange enough that commit is not in the thread
leading to 'master' in my History View.
On the other hand, the master has that mysterious "Merge branch 'master' of
..." commit that shows my complete SSL login (can that be changed or
removed?).  

What did I do wrong?  I did the fixing in a separate branch that I later
merged it into master, or that is what I thought I did at the time.
It seems I still haven't completely mastered the art of merging in Git....

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:24 AM
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] 1889 game fails
> 
> Erik:
> this game still fails.
> However there was no commit of yours pushed since db9eb8.
> Maybe you forgot to push?
> Stefan
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, August 01, 2011 05:53:32 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> > The '6' train had no quantity because the Optional6Train option was
> > not set, i.e. it was neither "yes" nor "no".
> >
> > I have checked all games for the presence of a default quantity (and
> > removed any redundant non-overriding option values).
> >
> > This saved game should now work.
> >
> > Erik.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 7:29 AM
> > > To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> > > Subject: [Rails-devel] 1889 game fails
> > >
> > > Erik,
> > > one of the 1889 test files fails with an configuration error.
> > > It seems that this is related to the new train management.
> > > Could you check this?
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stefan
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --- Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> > Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> > Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> BlackBerry&reg; DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA The must-
> attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] 1889 game fails

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Erik:
this game still fails.
However there was no commit of yours pushed since db9eb8.
Maybe you forgot to push?
Stefan



On Monday, August 01, 2011 05:53:32 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> The '6' train had no quantity because the Optional6Train option was not
> set, i.e. it was neither "yes" nor "no".
> 
> I have checked all games for the presence of a default quantity (and
> removed any redundant non-overriding option values).
> 
> This saved game should now work.
> 
> Erik.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 7:29 AM
> > To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> > Subject: [Rails-devel] 1889 game fails
> > 
> > Erik,
> > one of the 1889 test files fails with an configuration error.
> > It seems that this is related to the new train management.
> > Could you check this?
> > Thanks,
> > Stefan
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Automated testing

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Erik,
thanks for having a look at automated testing.

I consider it is not as difficult.But as usual suggestions for improvement are 
very welcome.

Regarding the failed tests from your phase changes they show that
A) Phase names in 1856 changed

B) All messages "train obsolete" were removed from 1830_A (C&R variant).

C) All messages "train rusted" were removed from both games 1889 and 18AL_A.

D) 18EU_A surprisingly kept the train rusted messages, but lost the message 
"TrainsAvailable,P".

It seems that A) was an intended change, for B) to D) I am not so sure.
Maybe you should check this.

Stefan


On Tuesday, August 02, 2011 09:02:59 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> Stefan,
> 
> Thanks for writing it all up again.  I have printed it and will try to keep
> it handy and use it.
> Maybe one day it will settle into my brains...
> 
> Erik.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:17 AM
> > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Automated testing
> > 
> > Erik:
> > the myth that "small report format changes render test cases invalid" is
> 
> not
> 
> > getting true by repetition. It only shows that either I was not able to
> 
> explain
> 
> > the workflow of the tests better or that you are not trying to get a
> 
> better
> 
> > understanding. Maybe both.
> > 
> > See a better explanation below. I will add this to the wiki too.
> > 
> > In general everyone can decide to use the tests or to simply ignore them.
> > I work with them all the time I simply reset the tests if you have broken
> > them. However it always worries me if I realize that tests fail after a
> 
> code
> 
> > change of yours as it is very tedious for me to find out if this was an
> > intentional change of the report or a bug (or maybe both). And more
> > important it is not my task to quality check your changes.
> > 
> > Thus if you prefer not to use them it does not effect me going on using
> 
> the
> 
> > tests for my own coding. However I would love to increase the quality of
> 
> the
> 
> > whole package Rails by convincing that it is better to test instead of
> 
> fixing
> 
> > bugs after the community reports about broken games.
> > 
> > Sorry for insisting on that but I consider this as a major time saver for
> 
> all of us,
> 
> > Stefan
> > 
> > 
> > Automated Game Tests:
> > 
> > *** What the test does:
> > 
> > * The test compares a stored game report (which is considered valid) with
> 
> a
> 
> > game report created with current compiled version of Rails. Any
> > difference
> 
> is
> 
> > marked as a failed test.
> > 
> > * If the game throws a Java error, this test is marked as an error.
> > 
> > * As the game report contains all items you refer to below, the test
> 
> includes
> 
> > all required functionality you define below.
> > 
> > * There is no such thing as "the test case is invalid". See below for a
> > workflow and further remarks. Either you did a valid change to the game
> > report
> > (it was your intention to change it) then you reset the base game report
> > (claim the new report as valid), or there has been a code change that
> 
> broke
> 
> > any of the test games.
> > 
> > *** Based on this the workflow for using the test is:
> > 
> > => You  have a code change that did not change the game report of the
> > test games:
> > 
> > * Run the tests. (In package test look for TestGameBuilder and RunAs =>
> > JUnit
> > Test). A graphical UI shows which test games pass, fail or raise an
> > error.
> > 
> > * If all tests pass, you are happy.
> > 
> > * If a test reports an error, load that game and check what kind of error
> 
> is
> 
> > reported. Fix code and rerun tests.
> > 
> > * If a test reports a failed, click on the first row in FailureTrace and
> 
> the
> 
> > first line where the current report and the expected report differ.
> > Either think about your premise (no change of game report) or fix code
> > and rerun tests.
> > 
> > => You have a code change that did change the game report of the test
> > games:
> > 
> > * Run tests, all games that are effected by your change of the game
> > report will fail. Potentially this can be all tests.
> > 
> > * Reset the tests. (In package test look for TestGameBuilder and RunAs =>
> > Application). The UI allows you to select either single games or whole
> 
> folders
> 
> > to reset the tests to the now current code base.
> > 
> > * If you now run the tests again, all tests will pass.
> > 
> > *** Further Remarks:
> > - Running the tests is a matter of seconds. Thus one is able to test
> 
> often.
> 
> > This makes identifying the reason of tests failing easier.
> > 
> > - Due to this workflow try to isolate report changes from other code
> 
> changes.
> 
> > - If test games cannot replayed at a specific point, because the action
> > is considered invalid by Rails, this shows as failed. However if it
> > makes
> 
> sense,
> 
> > the games can be truncated and the report reset.
> > 
> > - The game report of the test uses a special language setting (TE_ST),
> 
> which
> 
> > ignores the entries in LocalisedText (have a look at one of the reports
> > in test/data). Thus changing the entries in LocalisedText only will not
> > have tests fail.
> > 
> > On Monday, August 01, 2011 09:46:16 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> > > It's a unfortunate that even small report format changes render test
> 
> cases
> 
> > > invalid, and it makes this way of testing much less valuable for me.
> > > I understand that this is the only simple way, but perhaps we should
> 
> start
> 
> > > thinking about a somewhat more intelligent test evaluation method.
> > > 
> > > When I do my own regression testing with saved games, the main thing
> > > I'm looking for is that the game runs to the end without throwing
> 
> exceptions,
> 
> > > and that the end result looks reasonable.
> > > An automated test would of course need to be a bit more thorough:
> > > - are the player and companies turn sequences identical,
> > > - are the cash amounts the same,
> > > And perhaps a few more.
> > > 
> > > Only checking the status overview at the end of each round would
> > > already
> > 
> > do
> > 
> > > a lot.  Now that overview only reports cash, and I'm wondering if it
> 
> would
> 
> > > help to add other possessions,
> > > to create a complete written status overview (like the zines publish
> 
> about
> 
> > > the games they run), and check only that?
> > > 
> > > However, that is for the future.  For now, I can't guarantee anything.
> 
> I'm
> 
> > > myself occasionally wrestling with saved games that no longer load as a
> > > result of some improvement.
> > > For instance, removing redundant actions (where only 'Done' is
> > > possible) has had that effect in some cases. I still occasionally have
> > > to remove 'Done' actions from saved games to make these loadable
> > > again.  Fixing
> 
> bugs
> 
> > > has equally well invalidated test cases in the past.  So did
> > > implementation of the dynamic company operating order.
> > > 
> > > I can't tell if any such thing would apply to the current test set,
> 
> which I
> 
> > > haven't studied. The more recent the file is, the larger the chance
> > > that
> 
> it
> 
> > > is OK.
> > > 
> > > By private mail I'm sending you some files of the kind that I regularly
> 
> use
> 
> > > to check if things still work, and that cover some interesting aspects,
> 
> in
> 
> > > particular in relation to train trading.
> > > But in general I think recently completed games are more valuable
> 
> (trusting
> 
> > > that the players haven't missed any errors!).
> > > 
> > > Erik.
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 7:27 AM
> > > > To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> > > > Subject: [Rails-devel] Automated testing
> > > > 
> > > > I have added the games that I have received to automated game
> > > > testing. Thanks to all contributing save files.
> > > > There is also a table of those in the wiki (under developer
> 
> information).
> 
> > > > In the next few days (as time permits) I will add the existing
> > > > information
> > > 
> > > on
> > > 
> > > > game testing (from older mails) to the wiki and I hope it will
> 
> increase
> 
> > > the
> > > 
> > > > usage of those tests.
> > > > 
> > > > Currently all tests fail as Erik has changed many things that
> > > > impacted the Game Report (phase names and train obsolete messages).
> > > > 
> > > > Question to Erik: If you think all changes are merely phase name
> 
> changes
> 
> > > and
> > > 
> > > > adding/removing additional messages and you are sure that everything
> > > > works ok, give me a nod and then the game reports can be updated to
> > 
> > the
> > 
> > > > current states and all tests will show green again.
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately my master still automatically merges on pull, I will
> 
> setup
> 
> > > the
> > > 
> > > > master fresh as soon as I have pushed all my current local branches.
> > > > 
> > > > Stefan
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> > > - --
> > > 
> > > > Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> > > > Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> > > > Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > > Rai...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> > > --- BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
> > > The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> > > Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> > > Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > Rai...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> - --
> 
> > BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
> > The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> > Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> > Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
> The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Automated testing

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

Stefan,

Thanks for writing it all up again.  I have printed it and will try to keep
it handy and use it.
Maybe one day it will settle into my brains...

Erik.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:17 AM
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Automated testing
> 
> Erik:
> the myth that "small report format changes render test cases invalid" is
not
> getting true by repetition. It only shows that either I was not able to
explain
> the workflow of the tests better or that you are not trying to get a
better
> understanding. Maybe both.
> 
> See a better explanation below. I will add this to the wiki too.
> 
> In general everyone can decide to use the tests or to simply ignore them.
> I work with them all the time I simply reset the tests if you have broken
> them. However it always worries me if I realize that tests fail after a
code
> change of yours as it is very tedious for me to find out if this was an
> intentional change of the report or a bug (or maybe both). And more
> important it is not my task to quality check your changes.
> 
> Thus if you prefer not to use them it does not effect me going on using
the
> tests for my own coding. However I would love to increase the quality of
the
> whole package Rails by convincing that it is better to test instead of
fixing
> bugs after the community reports about broken games.
> 
> Sorry for insisting on that but I consider this as a major time saver for
all of us,
> Stefan
> 
> 
> Automated Game Tests:
> 
> *** What the test does:
> 
> * The test compares a stored game report (which is considered valid) with
a
> game report created with current compiled version of Rails. Any difference
is
> marked as a failed test.
> 
> * If the game throws a Java error, this test is marked as an error.
> 
> * As the game report contains all items you refer to below, the test
includes
> all required functionality you define below.
> 
> * There is no such thing as "the test case is invalid". See below for a
> workflow and further remarks. Either you did a valid change to the game
> report
> (it was your intention to change it) then you reset the base game report
> (claim the new report as valid), or there has been a code change that
broke
> any of the test games.
> 
> *** Based on this the workflow for using the test is:
> 
> => You  have a code change that did not change the game report of the test
> games:
> 
> * Run the tests. (In package test look for TestGameBuilder and RunAs =>
> JUnit
> Test). A graphical UI shows which test games pass, fail or raise an error.
> 
> * If all tests pass, you are happy.
> 
> * If a test reports an error, load that game and check what kind of error
is
> reported. Fix code and rerun tests.
> 
> * If a test reports a failed, click on the first row in FailureTrace and
the
> first line where the current report and the expected report differ.
> Either think about your premise (no change of game report) or fix code and
> rerun tests.
> 
> => You have a code change that did change the game report of the test
> games:
> 
> * Run tests, all games that are effected by your change of the game report
> will fail. Potentially this can be all tests.
> 
> * Reset the tests. (In package test look for TestGameBuilder and RunAs =>
> Application). The UI allows you to select either single games or whole
folders
> to reset the tests to the now current code base.
> 
> * If you now run the tests again, all tests will pass.
> 
> *** Further Remarks:
> - Running the tests is a matter of seconds. Thus one is able to test
often.
> This makes identifying the reason of tests failing easier.
> 
> - Due to this workflow try to isolate report changes from other code
changes.
> 
> - If test games cannot replayed at a specific point, because the action is
> considered invalid by Rails, this shows as failed. However if it makes
sense,
> the games can be truncated and the report reset.
> 
> - The game report of the test uses a special language setting (TE_ST),
which
> ignores the entries in LocalisedText (have a look at one of the reports in
> test/data). Thus changing the entries in LocalisedText only will not have
> tests fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, August 01, 2011 09:46:16 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> > It's a unfortunate that even small report format changes render test
cases
> > invalid, and it makes this way of testing much less valuable for me.
> > I understand that this is the only simple way, but perhaps we should
start
> > thinking about a somewhat more intelligent test evaluation method.
> >
> > When I do my own regression testing with saved games, the main thing I'm
> > looking for is that the game runs to the end without throwing
exceptions,
> > and that the end result looks reasonable.
> > An automated test would of course need to be a bit more thorough:
> > - are the player and companies turn sequences identical,
> > - are the cash amounts the same,
> > And perhaps a few more.
> >
> > Only checking the status overview at the end of each round would already
> do
> > a lot.  Now that overview only reports cash, and I'm wondering if it
would
> > help to add other possessions,
> > to create a complete written status overview (like the zines publish
about
> > the games they run), and check only that?
> >
> > However, that is for the future.  For now, I can't guarantee anything.
I'm
> > myself occasionally wrestling with saved games that no longer load as a
> > result of some improvement.
> > For instance, removing redundant actions (where only 'Done' is possible)
> > has had that effect in some cases. I still occasionally have to remove
> > 'Done' actions from saved games to make these loadable again.  Fixing
bugs
> > has equally well invalidated test cases in the past.  So did
> > implementation of the dynamic company operating order.
> >
> > I can't tell if any such thing would apply to the current test set,
which I
> > haven't studied. The more recent the file is, the larger the chance that
it
> > is OK.
> >
> > By private mail I'm sending you some files of the kind that I regularly
use
> > to check if things still work, and that cover some interesting aspects,
in
> > particular in relation to train trading.
> > But in general I think recently completed games are more valuable
(trusting
> > that the players haven't missed any errors!).
> >
> > Erik.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 7:27 AM
> > > To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> > > Subject: [Rails-devel] Automated testing
> > >
> > > I have added the games that I have received to automated game testing.
> > > Thanks to all contributing save files.
> > > There is also a table of those in the wiki (under developer
information).
> > >
> > > In the next few days (as time permits) I will add the existing
> > > information
> >
> > on
> >
> > > game testing (from older mails) to the wiki and I hope it will
increase
> >
> > the
> >
> > > usage of those tests.
> > >
> > > Currently all tests fail as Erik has changed many things that impacted
> > > the Game Report (phase names and train obsolete messages).
> > >
> > > Question to Erik: If you think all changes are merely phase name
changes
> >
> > and
> >
> > > adding/removing additional messages and you are sure that everything
> > > works ok, give me a nod and then the game reports can be updated to
> the
> > > current states and all tests will show green again.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately my master still automatically merges on pull, I will
setup
> >
> > the
> >
> > > master fresh as soon as I have pushed all my current local branches.
> > >
> > > Stefan
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - --
> >
> > > Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> > > Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> > > Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rails-devel mailing list
> > > Rai...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --- BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
> > The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> > Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> > Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
> The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Automated testing

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Erik:
the myth that "small report format changes render test cases invalid" is not 
getting true by repetition. It only shows that either I was not able to 
explain the workflow of the tests better or that you are not trying to get a 
better understanding. Maybe both.

See a better explanation below. I will add this to the wiki too.

In general everyone can decide to use the tests or to simply ignore them.
I work with them all the time I simply reset the tests if you have broken 
them. However it always worries me if I realize that tests fail after a code 
change of yours as it is very tedious for me to find out if this was an 
intentional change of the report or a bug (or maybe both). And more important  
it is not my task to quality check your changes.

Thus if you prefer not to use them it does not effect me going on using the 
tests for my own coding. However I would love to increase the quality of the 
whole package Rails by convincing that it is better to test instead of fixing 
bugs after the community reports about broken games.

Sorry for insisting on that but I consider this as a major time saver for all 
of us,
Stefan 


Automated Game Tests:

*** What the test does:

* The test compares a stored game report (which is considered valid) with a 
game report created with current compiled version of Rails. Any difference is 
marked as a failed test.

* If the game throws a Java error, this test is marked as an error.

* As the game report contains all items you refer to below, the test includes 
all required functionality you define below.

* There is no such thing as "the test case is invalid". See below for a 
workflow and further remarks. Either you did a valid change to the game report 
(it was your intention to change it) then you reset the base game report 
(claim the new report as valid), or there has been a code change that broke 
any of the test games.

*** Based on this the workflow for using the test is:

=> You  have a code change that did not change the game report of the test 
games:

* Run the tests. (In package test look for TestGameBuilder and RunAs => JUnit 
Test). A graphical UI shows which test games pass, fail or raise an error.

* If all tests pass, you are happy.

* If a test reports an error, load that game and check what kind of error is 
reported. Fix code and rerun tests.

* If a test reports a failed, click on the first row in FailureTrace and the 
first line where the current report and the expected report differ.
Either think about your premise (no change of game report) or fix code and 
rerun tests.

=> You have a code change that did change the game report of the test games:

* Run tests, all games that are effected by your change of the game report 
will fail. Potentially this can be all tests.

* Reset the tests. (In package test look for TestGameBuilder and RunAs => 
Application). The UI allows you to select either single games or whole folders 
to reset the tests to the now current code base.

* If you now run the tests again, all tests will pass.

*** Further Remarks:
- Running the tests is a matter of seconds. Thus one is able to test often. 
This makes identifying the reason of tests failing easier.

- Due to this workflow try to isolate report changes from other code changes. 

- If test games cannot replayed at a specific point, because the action is 
considered invalid by Rails, this shows as failed. However if it makes sense, 
the games can be truncated and the report reset.

- The game report of the test uses a special language setting (TE_ST), which 
ignores the entries in LocalisedText (have a look at one of the reports in 
test/data). Thus changing the entries in LocalisedText only will not have 
tests fail.




On Monday, August 01, 2011 09:46:16 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> It's a unfortunate that even small report format changes render test cases
> invalid, and it makes this way of testing much less valuable for me.
> I understand that this is the only simple way, but perhaps we should start
> thinking about a somewhat more intelligent test evaluation method.
> 
> When I do my own regression testing with saved games, the main thing I'm
> looking for is that the game runs to the end without throwing exceptions,
> and that the end result looks reasonable.
> An automated test would of course need to be a bit more thorough:
> - are the player and companies turn sequences identical,
> - are the cash amounts the same,
> And perhaps a few more.
> 
> Only checking the status overview at the end of each round would already do
> a lot.  Now that overview only reports cash, and I'm wondering if it would
> help to add other possessions,
> to create a complete written status overview (like the zines publish about
> the games they run), and check only that?
> 
> However, that is for the future.  For now, I can't guarantee anything.  I'm
> myself occasionally wrestling with saved games that no longer load as a
> result of some improvement.
> For instance, removing redundant actions (where only 'Done' is possible)
> has had that effect in some cases. I still occasionally have to remove
> 'Done' actions from saved games to make these loadable again.  Fixing bugs
> has equally well invalidated test cases in the past.  So did
> implementation of the dynamic company operating order.
> 
> I can't tell if any such thing would apply to the current test set, which I
> haven't studied. The more recent the file is, the larger the chance that it
> is OK.
> 
> By private mail I'm sending you some files of the kind that I regularly use
> to check if things still work, and that cover some interesting aspects, in
> particular in relation to train trading.
> But in general I think recently completed games are more valuable (trusting
> that the players haven't missed any errors!).
> 
> Erik.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 7:27 AM
> > To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> > Subject: [Rails-devel] Automated testing
> > 
> > I have added the games that I have received to automated game testing.
> > Thanks to all contributing save files.
> > There is also a table of those in the wiki (under developer information).
> > 
> > In the next few days (as time permits) I will add the existing
> > information
> 
> on
> 
> > game testing (from older mails) to the wiki and I hope it will increase
> 
> the
> 
> > usage of those tests.
> > 
> > Currently all tests fail as Erik has changed many things that impacted
> > the Game Report (phase names and train obsolete messages).
> > 
> > Question to Erik: If you think all changes are merely phase name changes
> 
> and
> 
> > adding/removing additional messages and you are sure that everything
> > works ok, give me a nod and then the game reports can be updated to the
> > current states and all tests will show green again.
> > 
> > Unfortunately my master still automatically merges on pull, I will setup
> 
> the
> 
> > master fresh as soon as I have pushed all my current local branches.
> > 
> > Stefan
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> - --
> 
> > Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> > Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> > Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- BlackBerry® DevCon Americas, Oct. 18-20, San Francisco, CA
> The must-attend event for mobile developers. Connect with experts.
> Get tools for creating Super Apps. See the latest technologies.
> Sessions, hands-on labs, demos & much more. Register early & save!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/rim-blackberry-1
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Automated testing

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

It's a unfortunate that even small report format changes render test cases
invalid, and it makes this way of testing much less valuable for me.
I understand that this is the only simple way, but perhaps we should start
thinking about a somewhat more intelligent test evaluation method.

When I do my own regression testing with saved games, the main thing I'm
looking for is that the game runs to the end without throwing exceptions,
and that the end result looks reasonable.
An automated test would of course need to be a bit more thorough:
- are the player and companies turn sequences identical,
- are the cash amounts the same,
And perhaps a few more. 

Only checking the status overview at the end of each round would already do
a lot.  Now that overview only reports cash, and I'm wondering if it would
help to add other possessions,
to create a complete written status overview (like the zines publish about
the games they run), and check only that?

However, that is for the future.  For now, I can't guarantee anything.  I'm
myself occasionally wrestling with saved games that no longer load as a
result of some improvement.
For instance, removing redundant actions (where only 'Done' is possible) has
had that effect in some cases. I still occasionally have to remove 'Done'
actions from saved games to make these loadable again.  Fixing bugs has
equally well invalidated test cases in the past.  So did implementation of
the dynamic company operating order.

I can't tell if any such thing would apply to the current test set, which I
haven't studied. The more recent the file is, the larger the chance that it
is OK.

By private mail I'm sending you some files of the kind that I regularly use
to check if things still work, and that cover some interesting aspects, in
particular in relation to train trading. 
But in general I think recently completed games are more valuable (trusting
that the players haven't missed any errors!).

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 7:27 AM
> To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> Subject: [Rails-devel] Automated testing
> 
> I have added the games that I have received to automated game testing.
> Thanks to all contributing save files.
> There is also a table of those in the wiki (under developer information).
> 
> In the next few days (as time permits) I will add the existing information
on
> game testing (from older mails) to the wiki and I hope it will increase
the
> usage of those tests.
> 
> Currently all tests fail as Erik has changed many things that impacted the
> Game Report (phase names and train obsolete messages).
> 
> Question to Erik: If you think all changes are merely phase name changes
and
> adding/removing additional messages and you are sure that everything
> works ok, give me a nod and then the game reports can be updated to the
> current states and all tests will show green again.
> 
> Unfortunately my master still automatically merges on pull, I will setup
the
> master fresh as soon as I have pushed all my current local branches.
> 
> Stefan
> 
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] 1889 game fails

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

The '6' train had no quantity because the Optional6Train option was not set,
i.e. it was neither "yes" nor "no".

I have checked all games for the presence of a default quantity (and removed
any redundant non-overriding option values).

This saved game should now work.

Erik.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 7:29 AM
> To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> Subject: [Rails-devel] 1889 game fails
> 
> Erik,
> one of the 1889 test files fails with an configuration error.
> It seems that this is related to the new train management.
> Could you check this?
> Thanks,
> Stefan

Re: [Rails-devel] Emergency train purchases

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

> > What kind of new classes would we need then?  These would need access
> > to many of the internals of Round and its subclasses, but I think
> > these can't themselves be (Operating)Round subclasses.n A new
> > hierarchy starting with an abstract top class named Step?
> 
> I simply asked to put the new code into a new class EmergencyTrainBuying
> and putting all code related to that there. I did not ask for a fully
refactoring
> of OperatingRound. All required information could have been passed per
> argument to them (and if they need full access then pass a reference to
the
> OperatingRound itself). This would have been easy.

I'm sorry to have disappointed you...

It is a misunderstanding that Rails has such a process called "emergency
train buying" that is separate from normal train buying, or that it could be
relevant to create such a distinction. 
(It's not even clear to me what "emergency" exactly means. I'm taking it to
mean that the president must add cash. It is not a very useful concept in
Rails. I'm mainly alluding to it because many game rule sets do.)

setBuyableTrains() sorts out all train buying possibilities, emergency or
not, and presents these as one list  of train buying options to the user. 
Only after the user has made a choice we know if the "emergency" qualifier
applies.  The only exception is if the company has zero cash: then we know
beforehand.
But even with $1 it's (almost) always (if only theoretically) possible to
buy a train from another company, and then there is no "emergency" in the
sense I understand this word.
 
As I have said before, all I have done is updating and somewhat
restructuring the existing method setSuyableTrains(), and make it use the
new configuration settings. The only real new code is parsing these new
settings (in GameManager).
In theory I could have moved this setSuyableTrains() method to somewhere
else, but I don't know a better place.  

Defining and applying a new concept of classes that perform certain OR steps
(e.g. TrainBuying) would be a much bigger step than what I have done now. 
I'm open to discuss that. But I don't see any benefit in haphazardly putting
random bits of code into new classes because some class has grown a bit
large.
(And IMO both would increase rather than decrease complexity.)

> Nearly all changes to adapt other 18xx games to Rails evolve around this
class
> and if it is so difficult and dangerous to change this class, this itself
is a strong
> case to actually make it simpler and less dangerous.

I don't consider OperatingRound to be "dangerous" at all - why would it be?
The various actions are well separated and identifiable. The complexities
are inside the methods, not in the number of it, or in their relationships
(as far as I'm aware).

Would it help to give this class some more structure by sorting the methods
into sections with a descriptive header, like "Main process", "Tile laying",
"Revenue and Dividend" etc.?

Erik.

Re: [Rails-devel] Emergency train purchases

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Erik:
thanks for your response. I am little disappointed that you were not able to 
do me that favor, as this implies that it makes my planned changes more 
difficult. Usually I try to follow requests from Brett and you even in those 
cases where I cannot understand the reasons for them ;-)
Most likely it was a misunderstanding.
Stefan

More detailed comments see below.


On Wednesday, July 27, 2011 11:35:54 pm Erik Vos wrote:
> Stefan,
> 
> Well, I am not against restructuring per se, but I wouldn't know how to do
> that, and I certainly don't consider it a high priority.

> 
> What kind of new classes would we need then?  These would need access to
> many of the internals of Round and its subclasses, but I think these can't
> themselves be (Operating)Round subclasses.n 
> A new hierarchy starting with an abstract top class named Step?

I simply asked to put the new code into a new class EmergencyTrainBuying and 
putting all code related to that there. I did not ask for a fully refactoring 
of OperatingRound. All required information could have been passed per 
argument to them (and if they need full access then pass a reference to the 
OperatingRound itself). This would have been easy.

> 
> In any case, it'll be a lot of work, and I would be concerned about all
> currently unforeseeable side effects that breaking up OperatingRound might
> have.

Full refactoring is a lot of work I agree and the fact the author of the class 
himself is concerned about unforeseeable side effects is a strong argument 
that refactoring of a class is a high priority.

Nearly all changes to adapt other 18xx games to Rails evolve around this class 
and if it is so difficult and dangerous to change this class, this itself is a 
strong case to actually make it simpler and less dangerous.

> 
> Didn't you have some plan to accomplish this?

Yes I have, but every addition of further functionality and dependency to this 
class makes this plan harder and harder.

> 
> Anyway, by now I have so many other items on my to-do list that I'm not
> really eager to pick up this one.

I am not eager to do this either, but someone has to swallow the bitter pill.
All I am asking is not make the taste even more bitter.

> 
> Erik.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:13 AM
> > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Emergency train purchases
> > 
> > Erik,
> > I understand that in your definition of the scope of the Operating Round
> > class, emergency train buying belongs there. Thus I should better ask for
> 
> a
> 
> > narrower scope of this class. Including everything what is required for
> > processing actions from companies operating is in my opinion too broad.
> 
> But I
> 
> > know your different opinion. However this scares other purple from
> > changing anything there. I would only dare to change the class after
> 
> serious
> 
> > refactoring. I hope you do not mind my different view.
> > Stefan
> > 
> > Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> schrieb:
> > >Stefan,
> > >
> > >All I'm doing now is updating the existing OperatingRound
> > >setBuyableTrains() method, using a few generic configuration settings,
> > >to implement the possible answers to a single main question that arises
> > >if a company has no
> > >
> > >trains:
> > >	Which trains are allowed to be bought at which (maximum) price,
> > 
> > given
> > 
> > >the amount of cash *currently* owned by the company and its president?
> > >
> > >So far the following decision factors that affect the answer to this
> > >main question have been identified:
> > >1. If a train from the Bank is bought, must the company buy the
> > >cheapest
> > >(used) train, even if he has sufficient cash to buy a more expensive
> > >(new) train?
> > >2. If not, may the president add cash to buy a new train if the company
> > >only has sufficient cash to buy a cheaper used train?
> > >3. May presidents add cash to buy a train from a company?
> > >4. If so, to what maximum price? (Usually list price is the upper
> > >limit, but the allowed max. price can be lower if the president is not
> > >allowed to sell shares in this case, which always seems to be so. In
> > >that
> 
> case
> 
> > the max.
> > 
> > >price is the lowest of the list price and the total cash owned by the
> > >company and its president.  So I think this question is practically
> > >equivalent to: May a president raise cash, e.g. by selling shares, to
> > >help buying a train from a company?  So far the answer to that last
> > >question always seems to be "no", which would make this question
> > 
> > redundant).
> > 
> > >I appreciate all efforts to explain to me how companies and presidents
> > >can raise cash by other means, such as selling shares, taking loans,
> > >issuing bonds etc., but that is *not* what I'm currently asking for.
> > >As it turns out, getting the answers to the above questions is
> > >difficult enough, and that is all I need in this stage.
> > >
> > >What I might do for you is to abstract away these decisions in Boolean
> > >methods (still in OperatingRound) that can be overridden. But I'm not
> > >sure to what extent that would be helpful. I don't expect many
> > >game-specific variations on the number of these basic decisions
> > >(affecting that single main question) and their possible answers.
> > >
> > >Please note, that I intend to put the new configuration settings under
> > ><GameParameters> in Game.xml.  For instance, for 1856 I now have
> > >
> > >	<OperatingRound
> > >
> > >class="rails.game.specific._1856.OperatingRound_1856">
> > >
> > >	                <EmergencyTrainBuying mustBuyCheapestTrain="yes"
> > >
> > >mayBuyFromCompany="no"/>
> > >
> > >	</OperatingRound>
> > >
> > >These new game parameters will be stored in the common
> > 
> > gameParameters
> > 
> > >collection in GameManager; the grouping under <OperatingRound> is only
> > >logical, not physical.
> > >
> > >Erik.
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 12:12 PM
> > >> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> > >> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Emergency train purchases
> > >> 
> > >> Erik:
> > >> I cannot add now to any of the rules question as I am currently
> > >> traveling,
> > >
> > >but
> > >
> > >> it seems that you are considering already a broad variety of rules.
> > >> 
> > >> I only ask for a favor with respect to the implementation:
> > >> Could you please put (nearly) all code related to the emergency train
> > >> purchases into one (new) class: Most likely a sub-component of
> > >> TrainManager.
> > >> This would also allow it to be easily be replaced by games which have
> > >
> > >not-yet
> > >
> > >> considered rules.
> > >> Please avoid adding it to the OperatingRound class as I intend it to
> > >
> > >refactor it
> > >
> > >> anyhow into smaller pieces.
> > >> 
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Stefan
> > >
> > >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >-----
> > >--
> > >
> > >> Magic Quadrant for Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention Research study
> > >> explores the data loss prevention market. Includes in-depth analysis
> > >> on
> > >
> > >the
> > >
> > >> changes within the DLP market, and the criteria used to evaluate the
> > >> strengths and weaknesses of these DLP solutions.
> > >> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51385063/
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Rails-devel mailing list
> > >> Rai...@li...
> > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> > >
> > >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >------- Magic Quadrant for Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention Research
> > >study explores the data loss prevention market. Includes in-depth
> > >analysis on the changes within the DLP market, and the criteria used to
> > >evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these DLP solutions.
> > >http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51385063/
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Rails-devel mailing list
> > >Rai...@li...
> > >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> - --
> 
> > Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> > Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> > Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

[Rails-devel] 1889 game fails

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Erik,
one of the 1889 test files fails with an configuration error.
It seems that this is related to the new train management.
Could you check this?
Thanks,
Stefan

[Rails-devel] Automated testing

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

I have added the games that I have received to automated game testing.
Thanks to all contributing save files.
There is also a table of those in the wiki (under developer information).

In the next few days (as time permits) I will add the existing information on 
game testing (from older mails) to the wiki and I hope it will increase the 
usage of those tests.

Currently all tests fail as Erik has changed many things that impacted the 
Game Report (phase names and train obsolete messages).

Question to Erik: If you think all changes are merely phase name changes and 
adding/removing additional messages and you are sure that everything works ok, 
give me a nod and then the game reports can be updated to the current states 
and all tests will show green again.

Unfortunately my master still automatically merges on pull, I will setup the 
master fresh as soon as I have pushed all my current local branches.

Stefan

[Rails-devel] Phase mgmt steps 1-3 completed

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

I have completed the phase management steps 1-3 by converting all remaining
games and removing all now redundant code.
The change may look larger that it is because I have reformatted several XML
files.

Erik.

Re: [Rails-devel] Design question 1880

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

1880 is sufficiently different from the other games that one would expect to
need several specific classes, but it's only in sorting out the details that
you can find out which ones you need.
I don't know about you, but I'm usually developing by trial and error,
keeping what works and looks reasonable, and throwing out what looks ugly. 

As I indicated, the generic 'rights' map can be used to hold the building
rights, so on their own these are not a sufficient reason for a special
class. 
I suppose that with "different director papers" you mean the choice between
20%, 30% and 40% directors? That's really unique, and I would certainly not
put that into the generic PublicCompany class. You'll also need some special
code to adapt the set of certificates to the choice that has been made.  I
find this feature alone already a sufficient reason to create a special
class, so you have my blessing for PublicCompany_1880  :-).  And then you
can as well put List<Phase> buildingRights into that class.

Of course not just the data but also the processes need to find a place, but
you'll have to work out what processes (methods) are needed and where these
can best be put into.  Just ask me if you want any more advice.

Erik  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Martin Brumm [mailto:Dr....@t-...]
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 9:42 PM
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Cc: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Design question 1880
> 
> Thanks for the as usual sound advice :)
> 
> I created the public company to put in those modifications as i dont think
> they are used somewhere else today, of course knowing the evolving history
> of double o games some of those mechanismn might resurface, but lets
> cross that bridge then ?
> 
> Or should we really bring in those changes to the main public company
class ?
> 
> - different director papers
> - building rights based on phases
> 
> Regards
> Martin
> 
> 
> Am 29.07.2011 um 20:06 schrieb "Erik Vos" <eri...@xs...>:
> 
> > Given that you already have created a special class
> > PublicCompany_1880, it would be most natural to save the building
> > rights as a List<Phase> in that class.
> >
> > Alternatively, you could consider to hold the building rights as
> > entries in the new 'rights' map in PublicCompany, that I recently
> > introduced for the
> > 1830 Coalfields right. The value of these entries could be composed
> > from the names of the phases for which the company has building
> > rights. Or, if we would change the 'rights' value type into Object,
> > you could put such a List<Phase> in there.
> >
> > I hope the above answers your question, which wasn't entirely clear to
me.
> >
> > Erik.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dr. Martin Brumm [mailto:Dr....@t-...]
> >> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 7:27 PM
> >> To: rai...@li...
> >> Subject: [Rails-devel] Design question 1880
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello
> >>
> >> I am currently looking at implementing the building rights for
> >> different phases in 1880.
> >>
> >> I would rather use a special property in the public company than
> >> creating
> > a
> >> new class based on a certificate.
> >>
> >> Reasoning is that those building rights are set once (one exemption
> >> stemming from a private) and cantbe modified or traded between
> >> companies.
> >>
> >> Any disagreement on that thought?
> >>
> >>
> >> Regarding the dynamic director certificate, does anyone of you have
> >> in
> > mind
> >> if theres other games where different director certificates (i.e.
> >> With a
> > value
> >> bigger as 20 percent) or flexible percentages are needed or again
> >> just
> > 1880
> >> speciality?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Martin
> >>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > --
> >> Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> >> Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> >> Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Rails-devel mailing list
> >> Rai...@li...
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> >
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> > Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> > Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Design question 1880

[Dr. M. B. <Dr....@t-...>]

Thanks for the as usual sound advice :)

I created the public company to put in those modifications as i dont think they are used somewhere else today, of course knowing the evolving history of double o games some of those mechanismn might resurface, but lets cross that bridge then ?

Or should we really bring in those changes to the main public company class ?

- different director papers
- building rights based on phases

Regards
Martin


Am 29.07.2011 um 20:06 schrieb "Erik Vos" <eri...@xs...>:

> Given that you already have created a special class PublicCompany_1880, it
> would be most natural to save the building rights as a List<Phase> in that
> class.  
> 
> Alternatively, you could consider to hold the building rights as entries in
> the new 'rights' map in PublicCompany, that I recently introduced for the
> 1830 Coalfields right. The value of these entries could be composed from the
> names of the phases for which the company has building rights. Or, if we
> would change the 'rights' value type into Object, you could put such a
> List<Phase> in there. 
> 
> I hope the above answers your question, which wasn't entirely clear to me.
> 
> Erik.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dr. Martin Brumm [mailto:Dr....@t-...]
>> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 7:27 PM
>> To: rai...@li...
>> Subject: [Rails-devel] Design question 1880
>> 
>> 
>> Hello
>> 
>> I am currently looking at implementing the building rights for different
>> phases in 1880.
>> 
>> I would rather use a special property in the public company than creating
> a
>> new class based on a certificate.
>> 
>> Reasoning is that those building rights are set once (one exemption
>> stemming from a private) and cantbe modified or traded between
>> companies.
>> 
>> Any disagreement on that thought?
>> 
>> 
>> Regarding the dynamic director certificate, does anyone of you have in
> mind
>> if theres other games where different director certificates (i.e. With a
> value
>> bigger as 20 percent) or flexible percentages are needed or again just
> 1880
>> speciality?
>> 
>> Regards
>> Martin
>> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>> Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
>> Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
>> Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rails-devel mailing list
>> Rai...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Design question 1880

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

Given that you already have created a special class PublicCompany_1880, it
would be most natural to save the building rights as a List<Phase> in that
class.  

Alternatively, you could consider to hold the building rights as entries in
the new 'rights' map in PublicCompany, that I recently introduced for the
1830 Coalfields right. The value of these entries could be composed from the
names of the phases for which the company has building rights. Or, if we
would change the 'rights' value type into Object, you could put such a
List<Phase> in there. 

I hope the above answers your question, which wasn't entirely clear to me.

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Martin Brumm [mailto:Dr....@t-...]
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 7:27 PM
> To: rai...@li...
> Subject: [Rails-devel] Design question 1880
> 
> 
> Hello
> 
> I am currently looking at implementing the building rights for different
> phases in 1880.
> 
> I would rather use a special property in the public company than creating
a
> new class based on a certificate.
> 
> Reasoning is that those building rights are set once (one exemption
> stemming from a private) and cantbe modified or traded between
> companies.
> 
> Any disagreement on that thought?
> 
> 
> Regarding the dynamic director certificate, does anyone of you have in
mind
> if theres other games where different director certificates (i.e. With a
value
> bigger as 20 percent) or flexible percentages are needed or again just
1880
> speciality?
> 
> Regards
> Martin
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Got Input?   Slashdot Needs You.
> Take our quick survey online.  Come on, we don't ask for help often.
> Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

[Rails-devel] Design question 1880

[Dr. M. B. <Dr....@t-...>]

Hello 

I am currently looking at implementing the building rights for different phases in 1880.

I would rather use a special property in the public company than creating a new class based on a certificate.

Reasoning is that those building rights are set once (one exemption stemming from a private) and cantbe modified or traded between companies.

Any disagreement on that thought?


Regarding the dynamic director certificate, does anyone of you have in mind if theres other games where different director certificates (i.e. With a value bigger as 20 percent) or flexible percentages are needed or again just 1880 speciality?

Regards
Martin