robot-name: collision detection not convincing

differentRobotsHaveDifferentNames and resetName are not proper tests for detecting collisions. They need many more iterations to be convincing (~1/670000).

Here is my modified test:

import org.junit.Test;

import java.util.stream.IntStream;

import static org.hamcrest.CoreMatchers.equalTo;
import static org.hamcrest.core.Is.is;
import static org.hamcrest.core.IsNot.not;
import static org.junit.Assert.assertThat;

public class RobotTest {

    private static final String EXPECTED_ROBOT_NAME_PATTERN = "\\w{2}\\d{3}";
    private final Robot robot1 = new Robot();
    private final Robot robot2 = new Robot();

    @Test
    public void hasName() {
        assertIsValidName(robot1.getName());
    }

    @Test
    public void differentRobotsHaveDifferentNames() {
        IntStream.range(0, 300000).forEach(x -> {
            assertThat(robot1.getName(), not(equalTo(new Robot().getName())));
        });
    }

    @Test
    public void resetName() {
        IntStream.range(0, 300000).forEach(x -> {
            final String name = robot2.getName();
            robot2.reset();
            final String name2 = robot2.getName();
            assertThat(name, not(equalTo(name2)));
            assertIsValidName(name2);
        });
    }

    private static void assertIsValidName(String name) {
        assertThat(name.matches(EXPECTED_ROBOT_NAME_PATTERN), is(true));
    }
}

[stkent]

I have a feeling that the specification of this exercise disallows convincing tests. There’s no canonical test data. If anyone is interested in picking this up in the future I’d recommend starting by reviewing the tests in other tracks to see if this conundrum has already been worked around someplace else.

[stkent]

Closing until there’s interest in actively working on this again.