(red) new red test for detecting bug in and' implementation

MaxWilson · Jan 11, 2024 · 7bd0e8e · 7bd0e8e
1 parent f31a319
commit 7bd0e8e
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 2 changed files with 8 additions and 5 deletions.
diff --git a/src/Core/Menus.fs b/src/Core/Menus.fs
@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ type Op =
             | Some (Level lvl) when lvl < levels.Length -> level lvl
             | _ when levels.Length >= 1 -> // we are permissive in the input we accept, partly to make testing easier. Flag means "default to the lowest value", e.g. Rapier +5-+7 defaults to Rapier +5.
                 level 0
-            | _ -> shouldntHappen "A levelled option with no levels is nonsense"
+            | _ -> shouldntHappen "A leveled option with no levels is nonsense"
             )
 
     static member budget (budgetF, offers: 't ListOffer list) =
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ type Op =
         Op.and'(config, offers |> List.map (fun o -> Op.promote o))
     static member and' (config: 't OfferConfig, offers: 't ListOffer list) : 't ListOffer =
         offer(
-            { config.inner with explicitUnselectedLabel = match offers |> List.map _.config.label with | [Some lhs; Some rhs] -> Some $"{lhs} and {rhs}" | _ -> None }, // promote label in the simple case
+            { config.inner with explicitUnselectedLabel = match offers |> List.map (_.config.explicitUnselectedLabel) with | [Some lhs; Some rhs] -> Some $"{lhs} and {rhs}" | _ -> None }, // promote label in the simple case
             fun config input ->
                 let children = [
                     for o in offers do

diff --git a/test/Chargen.Accept.fs b/test/Chargen.Accept.fs
@@ -144,6 +144,9 @@ let units = testList "Unit.Chargen" [
                         ])
                     ])
             )
+    testCase "and' should have a key based on its children" <| fun() ->
+        let offer = and'([skill("Fast-Draw (Sword)", +1); skill("Fast-Draw (Dagger)", +1)])
+        test <@ offer.config.key.Value = "Fast-Draw (Sword) +1 and Fast-Draw (Dagger) +1" @>
     ]
 [<Tests>]
 let tests =
@@ -188,9 +191,9 @@ let tests =
                             false, key "Sword!-Shortsword", Leaf "Shortsword +5"
                             ])
                         ])
-                    Either(None, [true, ["Fast-Draw (Sword) +2"], Leaf "Fast-Draw (Sword) +2"])
+                    Either(None, [true, ["Fast-Draw (Sword) +1 and Fast-Draw (Dagger) +1"], Leaf "Fast-Draw (Sword) +1 and Fast-Draw (Dagger) +1"])
                     ]
-                offers |> testFors ["Sword!"; "Fast/-Draw (Sword) +2"] expectedMenus // evaluate swash() with Sword! selected and compare it to expectedMenus. Escape Fast-Draw to prevent it from being interpreted by parseKey as Fast + Draw
+                offers |> testFors ["Sword!"; "Fast/-Draw (Sword) +1 and Fast/-Draw (Dagger) +1"] expectedMenus // evaluate swash() with Sword! selected and compare it to expectedMenus. Escape Fast-Draw to prevent it from being interpreted by parseKey as Fast + Draw
                 render pseudoReactApi expectedMenus // if that passes, render it to ReactElements and see if it looks right
             let fail expect v = failwith $"Expected {expect} but got {v}\nContext: {pseudoActual}"
             let (|Checked|) = function Checked(label, key, children) -> Checked(label, key, children) | v -> fail "Checked" v
@@ -212,7 +215,7 @@ let tests =
                     Unchecked(Expect "Broadsword +5", Expect ["Broadsword"; "Sword!"])
                     Unchecked(Expect "Shortsword +5", Expect ["Shortsword"; "Sword!"])
                     ])
-                Checked(Expect "Fast-Draw (Sword) +2", Expect ["Fast-Draw (Sword) +2"], Expect [])
+                Checked(Expect "Fast-Draw (Sword) +1 and Fast-Draw (Dagger) +1", Expect ["Fast-Draw (Sword) +1 and Fast-Draw (Dagger) +1"], Expect [])
                 ]) -> ()
             | v -> matchfail v // maybe we got the wrong number of NumberInputs from the Unconditional or something. Would be nice to have the error message say exactly what went wrong,
                             // but Expect active pattern isn't valid as an input to Fragment/Unconditional/etc. so we can't just Expect a specific list of children. Although... maybe we can refactor