nf()… a Peer-Review

As I stated before in my post, I will be performing some peer-reviews for my 0.5 release. Today I looked at nf() coded by mlam19. Here is a link to the lighthouse ticket, the processing reference, and the JAVA code I used to decide what the function is suppose to return. I enjoy reviewing code written by Matthew because it always accompanies extensive testing. I know that even after the peer-review passes he will make changes if he encounters a bug.  I took some time looking at the code and the nf test1 and nf test 2 that mlam19 wrote. It took me a while to test this function because the test used another new function that was not yet pushed to the repo (“str1”.equals(“str2”) function). Luckily, i did the peer-review for that function as well. Here is a comparison of the output:
The basis for my decision:
  • the function returns the appropriate value.
  • the function is written following the coding standards . Using 2 spaces instead of a tab, and leaving a space around brackets
  • there is tests available to test the function

After reviewing the code I gave nf() the status of super-review-requested.

View all of my blogs on Processing.js
View all of my blogs

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s