feat: enhance position handling in notation decoding #27
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces a new assignment in the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant T as Tester
participant U as UCINotation Decoder
participant M as Move
T->>+U: Call Decode(pos)
U->>M: Set m.position = pos.Update(&m)
U-->>-T: Return Move with updated position
T->>T: Validate move.position matches expected
Possibly related PRs
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #27 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 70.24% 70.25% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 27 27
Lines 4476 4478 +2
==========================================
+ Hits 3144 3146 +2
- Misses 1196 1197 +1
+ Partials 136 135 -1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
notation.go (1)
161-171: Consider documenting the position field usage.Since the position field is a new addition to the Move struct, it would be helpful to document its purpose and usage in the struct definition.
notation_test.go (1)
239-241: LGTM! Position validation is thorough and well-guarded.The test correctly validates the position field with appropriate nil checks and only when no error is expected.
However, consider adding a test case that explicitly verifies position handling:
tests := []struct { name string pos *Position input string want *Move wantErr bool }{ + { + name: "verify position is preserved", + pos: unsafeFEN("rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"), + input: "e2e4", + want: &Move{s1: E2, s2: E4, position: unsafeFEN("rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1")}, + wantErr: false, + },
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
notation.go(1 hunks)notation_test.go(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: vulncheck
🔇 Additional comments (1)
notation.go (1)
165-165: LGTM! Position assignment is correctly placed.The position assignment is well-placed after the nil check and before tag addition, maintaining a logical flow of operations.
Summary by CodeRabbit