gouldk / arrayinterface Goto Github PK

Do you intend for push() to "Add the given object to the next available index" OR "at the end of the array". For example, in your test_remove() test, you make an Array of size 7, then only add an element at index 3. What would be the "next available index"? Would it be 0 (presumably an empty slot in the array), 4 (following the element you just placed at 3), or 7 (the size of the array). The test and spec seem to conflict a bit.

/**
 * @brief      Tests the remove function for Array
 */
void test_remove() {
	Array* arr = new Array(7);
	Object* obj = new Object();
	arr->set(obj, 3);
	assert(obj->equals(arr->remove(3)));
	assert(arr->get(3) == NULL);
	delete(obj);
	delete(arr);
}

Thank you!

Would you be able to add an index_of() method to your array api? We think this is a useful method that will help us with other parts of the assignment

In class we talked about how having array types like intArray, floatArray, boolArray are faster and probably a better way to handle primitives instead of wrappers. Do you think you could implement these instead?

Basically these would look just like the Array class but instead of having parameters as type Object, they would be of type int (or other primitive) where appropriate.

Thanks!

Since your Array is an Array of Objects, we will not be able to add primitive types (int, float, bool) to the Array otherwise.

Thank you!

Hey sorry, we just noticed this as we were reading through the assignment for what we thought would be one last time. It says Arrays should grow when values are pushed back, and otherwise support reads and writes. To fix this, since you guys are going for a fixed size array api, we think you could just add a push() method that takes an object to add. We can then just call resize and set to push the object back and grow the array. Everything else would stay the same. What do you guys think?

What happens if we try to push an element on a full array?
For example:
array = [object1, object2, object3]
if we call array->push(object4), should we allocate more space by resize()? Or are you trying to make this a fixed size array?

Thanks for all the updates! We just tried to rerun the tests with our new implementation but there are compiler errors with the new code. Could you please fix them?

Thanks!

We modified a bit of the code to fix some compiler issues in the test-array.cpp file. We also ended up changing the interface a bit for the primitive Arrays to inherit from Object instead of Array. This is because we found we would still need to use primitive Wrappers if we inherited from Array, since Array uses Objects.
We tried checking out a branch and pushing it to this repo to make a PR, but it still says:

Would you be able to give us access to the repo so you won't have to write out all this code if you agree with our changes?

Thank you!

In your tests, you delete the array variables that you create:

void test_constructor_length() {
	Array* arr = new Array(20);
	assert(arr != NULL);
	assert(arr->length() == 20);
	delete(arr);
}

This is causing a malloc error when we try to run the tests. Would you be able to explain why you included the delete in there?

Thank you!

These repositories contain the APIs you should implement

1. Queue

https://github.com/hakjoonlee/CS4500-A1P2.git

2. Map

https://github.com/TomPeng19971208/CS4500_A1_Part2.git

3. Array

https://github.com/DamienDumayas/a1p2.git

Could you please add the hash and equals methods to the Array API?

         * @brief      Gets the hash value for this array (and sets if unset).
         *
         * @return     a size_t representing the hash value
         */
        size_t hash();

        /**
         * @brief      determines if this array is same as the other one.
         *
         * @param      other  The other object
         *
         * @return     True if equal, false if not
         */
        bool equals(Object* other);

We tried making a pull request, but it looks like we don't have access to your repo.

What do you mean by deep copy?

These tests are failing rightfully, but I'm not sure if they're proper tests...
t_false(a4->get(0)->equals(a));
t_false(a4->get(1)->equals(b));
t_false(a4->get(2)->equals(a_obj));

They are followed by reverse tests...
t_true(a4->get(0)->equals(a));
t_true(a4->get(1)->equals(b));
t_true(a4->get(2)->equals(a_obj));
t_true(a4->get(3)->equals(b));

t_true(a3->index(a_obj) == 2); // this fails because a is stored at 0 and is technically equal to a_obj
Is this an intended failure?

We are having problems writing the equals() method since the array is initialized with nullptrs. We can technically check that a value is a nullptr, but then when we actually try to get and return that value, we can't access it and it seg faults. We can't set the array values to be something like 0, '\0' or any other dummy value, etc. as those are not Object* types, or even a new Object() since each default object will be different for each new array initialized.

        bool equals(Object* other) {
            if (other == nullptr) return false;

            Array* l = dynamic_cast<Array*>(other); // if it fails, returns null ptr. if s is null, it was not a string, therefore the two objects are not equal
            if (l == nullptr) return false;

            // check size first, if they are not the same length, then they are not equal
            if (l->length() != size_) {
                return false;
            }

            bool result = true;
            // loop through all the values in the given array and make sure they are the same as this array's values
            for (int i = 0; i < l->size_; i++) {
                std::cout << "inside loop: " << "\n";
                Object* this_object = get(i);
                Object* other_object = l->get(i);
                result = result && this_object->equals(other_object);
            }

            return result;
        }

Do you have any ideas/intentions when you made it? Or can you add some change so that it behaves more like a list and that way we can guarantee there won't be random empty spots.

The purpose statement for set does not make sense. Why would it be putting the index to the given object? Is set not supposed to just replace the object at the given index with the given object?

Thank you!

Ya'll have 19 compiler errors. Could you please go through and fix them? It looks like you might be missing an includes statement for "assert", which is most of your errors.

Thank you!