game.go (3)

358-444: Consider refactoring for lower cognitive complexity.

Static analysis flagged the writeMoves function with a cognitive complexity of 24, exceeding recommended thresholds. Extracting tasks into smaller helper functions (e.g., handling comments, variations, and sub-variation logic) can improve readability and maintainability without losing clarity.

🧰 Tools

🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)

360-360: cognitive complexity 24 of func writeMoves is high (> 20)

(gocognit)

---

401-401: S1009: should omit nil check; len() for map[string]string is defined as zero

(gosimple)

---

401-401: Remove redundant nil-check for command.

In Go, calling len(nilMap) returns 0, so explicitly checking currentMove.command != nil before len(currentMove.command) > 0 is unnecessary. Removing the extra check simplifies the logic.

-if currentMove.command != nil && len(currentMove.command) > 0 {
+if len(currentMove.command) > 0 {

🧰 Tools

🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)

401-401: S1009: should omit nil check; len() for map[string]string is defined as zero

(gosimple)

---

452-463: Validate partial PGN data.

UnmarshalText correctly constructs a reader and calls PGN. Consider expanding negative tests (e.g., invalid PGN tokens) to ensure robust error handling. This function already returns errors from PGN(r), so coverage looks sufficient, but you can add more edge-case tests if the parser is prone to partial read edge cases.

game_test.go (1)

1015-1176: Improve subtest naming for clarity.

The subtests "GameStringWithDifferentResults" appear thrice (lines 1082, 1091, and 1100). Having identical names can confuse some test runners or hamper debugging. Rename them to distinguish White/Black/Draw results.

Otherwise, these tests provide comprehensive coverage of the PGN rendering logic and are highly commendable.

-    name: "GameStringWithDifferentResults",
+    name: "GameStringWithWhiteWinResult",

-    name: "GameStringWithDifferentResults",
+    name: "GameStringWithBlackWinResult",

-    name: "GameStringWithDifferentResults",
+    name: "GameStringWithDrawResult",

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

game.go (2)

358-444: Consider breaking down the complex writeMoves function.

While the implementation is correct, the function has high cognitive complexity (23). Consider extracting the following into helper functions to improve readability and maintainability:

• Move encoding logic (lines 385-394)
• Comment handling (lines 397-407)
• Variation handling (lines 419-428)

Example refactor:

 func writeMoves(node *Move, moveNum int, isWhite bool, sb *strings.Builder, subVariation bool) {
     if node == nil {
         return
     }
 
     var currentMove *Move
     if subVariation {
         currentMove = node
     } else {
         if len(node.children) == 0 {
             return
         }
         currentMove = node.children[0]
     }
 
     writeMoveNumber(moveNum, isWhite, subVariation, sb)
-    // Encode the move using your AlgebraicNotation.
-    if node.Parent() == nil {
-        sb.WriteString(AlgebraicNotation{}.Encode(node.Position(), currentMove))
-    } else {
-        moveStr := AlgebraicNotation{}.Encode(node.Parent().Position(), currentMove)
-        sb.WriteString(moveStr)
-    }
+    writeMoveEncoding(node, currentMove, sb)
 
-    // Append a comment if present.
-    if currentMove.comments != "" {
-        sb.WriteString(" {" + currentMove.comments + "}")
-    }
+    writeComments(currentMove, sb)
 
-    if len(currentMove.command) > 0 {
-        sb.WriteString(" {")
-        for key, value := range currentMove.command {
-            sb.WriteString(" [%" + key + " " + value + "]")
-        }
-        sb.WriteString(" }")
-    }
+    writeCommands(currentMove, sb)
 
     if !subVariation {
         sb.WriteString(" ")
     } else if len(currentMove.children) > 0 {
         sb.WriteString(" ")
     }
 
-    // Process any variations
-    if len(node.children) > 1 {
-        for i := 1; i < len(node.children); i++ {
-            variation := node.children[i]
-            sb.WriteString("(")
-            writeMoves(variation, moveNum, isWhite, sb, true)
-            sb.WriteString(") ")
-        }
-    }
+    writeVariations(node, moveNum, isWhite, sb)
 
     if len(currentMove.children) > 0 {
         var nextMoveNum int
         var nextIsWhite bool
         if isWhite {
             nextMoveNum = moveNum
             nextIsWhite = false
         } else {
             nextMoveNum = moveNum + 1
             nextIsWhite = true
         }
         writeMoves(currentMove, nextMoveNum, nextIsWhite, sb, false)
     }
 }

+func writeMoveNumber(moveNum int, isWhite bool, subVariation bool, sb *strings.Builder) {
+    if isWhite {
+        sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("%d. ", moveNum))
+    } else if subVariation {
+        sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("%d... ", moveNum))
+    }
+}
+
+func writeMoveEncoding(node *Move, currentMove *Move, sb *strings.Builder) {
+    if node.Parent() == nil {
+        sb.WriteString(AlgebraicNotation{}.Encode(node.Position(), currentMove))
+    } else {
+        moveStr := AlgebraicNotation{}.Encode(node.Parent().Position(), currentMove)
+        sb.WriteString(moveStr)
+    }
+}
+
+func writeComments(move *Move, sb *strings.Builder) {
+    if move.comments != "" {
+        sb.WriteString(" {" + move.comments + "}")
+    }
+}
+
+func writeCommands(move *Move, sb *strings.Builder) {
+    if len(move.command) > 0 {
+        sb.WriteString(" {")
+        for key, value := range move.command {
+            sb.WriteString(" [%" + key + " " + value + "]")
+        }
+        sb.WriteString(" }")
+    }
+}
+
+func writeVariations(node *Move, moveNum int, isWhite bool, sb *strings.Builder) {
+    if len(node.children) > 1 {
+        for i := 1; i < len(node.children); i++ {
+            variation := node.children[i]
+            sb.WriteString("(")
+            writeMoves(variation, moveNum, isWhite, sb, true)
+            sb.WriteString(") ")
+        }
+    }
+}

🧰 Tools

🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)

360-360: cognitive complexity 23 of func writeMoves is high (> 20)

(gocognit)

---

409-409: Track the TODO for Nags support.

The comment indicates that Nags notation support is incomplete. Would you like me to create an issue to track this enhancement?

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro