302 lines
No EOL
10 KiB
Markdown
302 lines
No EOL
10 KiB
Markdown
# TDD Katas Collection
|
|
|
|
A collection of Test-Driven Development (TDD) exercises implementing classic programming katas, following Uncle Bob's Clean Code principles and Domain-Driven Design tactical patterns.
|
|
|
|
## Purpose
|
|
|
|
These katas demonstrate:
|
|
|
|
- **Test-Driven Development:** Production code written only to pass failing tests
|
|
- **Clean Code Practices:** Intent-revealing names, single responsibility, domain-focused abstractions
|
|
- **Domain-Driven Design:** Value Objects enforce domain constraints at the type level
|
|
- **The Craftsman's Way:** Quality is not a trade-off for speed; it is the only way to go fast
|
|
|
|
## Completed Katas
|
|
|
|
### 1. Roman Numerals ✅
|
|
|
|
**Implementation:** [`lib/roman_numerals.dart`](lib/roman_numerals.dart)
|
|
**Tests:** [`test/roman_numerals_test.dart`](test/roman_numerals_test.dart)
|
|
|
|
Converts integers (1-3999) to Roman numeral notation using a table-driven greedy algorithm.
|
|
|
|
#### Domain Context
|
|
|
|
Roman numerals represent numbers using seven basic symbols with specific combination rules:
|
|
|
|
**Symbols:**
|
|
- `I` = 1, `V` = 5, `X` = 10, `L` = 50, `C` = 100, `D` = 500, `M` = 1000
|
|
|
|
**Domain Rules:**
|
|
1. **Additive Notation:** Symbols placed in descending order are summed (e.g., `VI` = 6)
|
|
2. **Subtractive Notation:** Smaller symbol before larger subtracts (e.g., `IV` = 4)
|
|
3. **Repetition Limit:** Symbols repeat maximum three times (e.g., `III` = 3, not `IIII`)
|
|
4. **Valid Range:** Classical Roman numerals represent 1-3999
|
|
|
|
**Subtractive Pairs (Domain Constraint):**
|
|
Only specific pairs use subtractive notation:
|
|
- `IV` (4), `IX` (9)
|
|
- `XL` (40), `XC` (90)
|
|
- `CD` (400), `CM` (900)
|
|
|
|
#### Key Design Decisions
|
|
|
|
**Value Object Pattern:** `RomanNumeralInput` enforces domain invariants (1-3999 range). Invalid inputs are impossible to construct.
|
|
|
|
**Table-Driven Algorithm:** The `conversionRules` table is the **domain model**—it directly represents Roman numeral encoding rules.
|
|
|
|
**Greedy Decomposition:** The algorithm mirrors how Romans actually encoded numbers: repeatedly subtract the largest applicable value.
|
|
|
|
#### Usage
|
|
|
|
```dart
|
|
import 'package:tdd_katas/roman_numerals.dart';
|
|
|
|
integerToRoman(1994); // Returns: 'MCMXCIV'
|
|
integerToRoman(0); // Throws: ArgumentError
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 2. Bowling Game ✅
|
|
|
|
**Implementation:** [`lib/bowling_game.dart`](lib/bowling_game.dart)
|
|
**Tests:** [`test/bowling_game_test.dart`](test/bowling_game_test.dart)
|
|
|
|
Calculates scores for a bowling game following official scoring rules with look-ahead bonus logic for strikes and spares.
|
|
|
|
#### Domain Context
|
|
|
|
A bowling game consists of 10 frames where players roll a ball to knock down pins:
|
|
|
|
**Scoring Rules:**
|
|
1. **Normal Frame:** Sum of pins knocked down (e.g., 3 + 4 = 7)
|
|
2. **Spare (/):** All 10 pins in 2 rolls → Score = 10 + next 1 roll
|
|
3. **Strike (X):** All 10 pins in 1 roll → Score = 10 + next 2 rolls
|
|
4. **10th Frame:** Bonus rolls awarded if spare or strike achieved
|
|
|
|
#### Key Design Decisions
|
|
|
|
**State Management:** Stores all rolls in a list and calculates score by iterating through frames, not individual rolls.
|
|
|
|
**Look-Ahead Logic:** Spares and strikes require examining future rolls for bonus calculation—the algorithm walks forward strategically.
|
|
|
|
**Frame Advancement:** Strikes consume 1 roll, spares/normal frames consume 2 rolls—the algorithm tracks position correctly.
|
|
|
|
#### Usage
|
|
|
|
```dart
|
|
import 'package:tdd_katas/bowling_game.dart';
|
|
|
|
final game = BowlingGame();
|
|
game.roll(10); // Strike!
|
|
game.roll(3);
|
|
game.roll(4);
|
|
// ... continue rolling
|
|
print(game.score()); // Calculates total with bonuses
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### The "Aha!" Moment
|
|
|
|
Tests for simple cases (gutter game, one spare, one strike) drove an algorithm that automatically handles complex scenarios like perfect games (300 points) without explicit implementation. **This is TDD's magic—correct abstractions emerge naturally.**
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 3. [Third Kata Name] 🚧
|
|
|
|
**Status:** Not yet started
|
|
**Implementation:** `lib/[third_kata].dart`
|
|
**Tests:** `test/[third_kata]_test.dart`
|
|
|
|
*Coming soon...*
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Running Tests
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
# Run all tests
|
|
dart test
|
|
|
|
# Run specific test file
|
|
dart test test/roman_numerals_test.dart
|
|
dart test test/bowling_game_test.dart
|
|
|
|
# Run with coverage
|
|
dart test --coverage
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Development Philosophy
|
|
|
|
### The Craftsman's Standard
|
|
|
|
> "Clean code that works." — Ron Jeffries
|
|
|
|
Every kata in this collection follows:
|
|
- **Uncle Bob's Clean Code:** Intent-revealing names, functions do one thing, no comments needed
|
|
- **Kent Beck's TDD:** Red-Green-Refactor discipline, tests first
|
|
- **Eric Evans' DDD:** Domain concepts drive the model, tactical patterns enforce boundaries
|
|
- **The Boy Scout Rule:** Every commit leaves the code cleaner than before
|
|
|
|
### TDD Discipline Applied
|
|
|
|
1. **Red:** Write a failing test
|
|
2. **Green:** Write the simplest code to pass
|
|
3. **Refactor:** Clean up duplication, improve names
|
|
4. **Repeat:** Let the design emerge from tests
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Roman Numerals: Detailed Journey
|
|
|
|
### Test Strategy
|
|
|
|
Tests are organized by **domain concepts**, not technical structure:
|
|
|
|
**Basic Symbols:**
|
|
Tests for the seven fundamental symbols (I, V, X, L, C, D, M)
|
|
|
|
**Subtractive Notation:**
|
|
Tests for all six subtractive pairs, verifying the domain rule
|
|
|
|
**Additive Combinations:**
|
|
Tests for repeated symbols and multi-symbol sequences
|
|
|
|
**Complex Edge Cases:**
|
|
Stress tests combining multiple rules:
|
|
- `1994 → MCMXCIV` (year notation)
|
|
- `3999 → MMMCMXCIX` (maximum valid value)
|
|
- `444 → CDXLIV` (all subtractive positions)
|
|
|
|
**Constraint Validation:**
|
|
Boundary tests for the valid range (1-3999)
|
|
|
|
### Development Timeline
|
|
|
|
1. **Red:** Tests for 1-5 (basic additive, first subtractive case)
|
|
2. **Green:** Minimal implementation with conditionals
|
|
3. **Refactor:** Extract symbol mapping, clarify intent
|
|
4. **Red:** Tests for 6-10 (reveals pattern)
|
|
5. **Green:** Extend conditionals
|
|
6. **Refactor:** Recognize duplication → Table-driven approach emerges
|
|
7. **Red:** Tests for 40-1000 (remaining symbols)
|
|
8. **Green:** Extend conversion table (algorithm unchanged)
|
|
9. **Red:** Edge cases and constraint tests
|
|
10. **Green:** Add `RomanNumeralInput` Value Object
|
|
11. **Refactor:** Extract validation, organize tests by domain concept
|
|
|
|
### Key Insights
|
|
|
|
**The Algorithm Never Changed:** After the table-driven refactoring, adding 40-1000 required **zero logic modifications**. This validates the abstraction.
|
|
|
|
**Type System as Domain Enforcer:** `RomanNumeralInput` makes invalid states unrepresentable. You cannot construct a Roman numeral for 0 or 4000—the compiler prevents it.
|
|
|
|
**Tests as Living Documentation:** Test names use **ubiquitous language** from the Roman numeral domain. A domain expert could read the test file and recognize the rules they explained.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Bowling Game: Detailed Journey
|
|
|
|
### Test Strategy
|
|
|
|
Tests are organized by **scoring complexity**, mirroring how the domain rules build on each other:
|
|
|
|
**Basic Scoring:**
|
|
- Gutter game (all zeros)
|
|
- All ones (simple addition)
|
|
|
|
**Spare Bonus (next 1 roll):**
|
|
- One spare in first frame
|
|
- All spares (150 points)
|
|
|
|
**Strike Bonus (next 2 rolls):**
|
|
- One strike in first frame
|
|
- Perfect game (300 points)
|
|
|
|
**Complex Scenarios:**
|
|
- Combinations of strikes, spares, and normal frames
|
|
|
|
### Development Timeline
|
|
|
|
1. **Red:** Gutter game test
|
|
2. **Green:** Return 0 (simplest implementation)
|
|
3. **Red:** All ones test
|
|
4. **Green:** Store rolls, sum them in `score()`
|
|
5. **Refactor:** Extract `rollMany()` helper, add `setUp()`
|
|
6. **Red:** One spare test
|
|
7. **Green:** Detect spare, add look-ahead bonus (+1 roll)
|
|
8. **Refactor:** Extract `_isSpare()` helper
|
|
9. **Red:** One strike test
|
|
10. **Green:** Detect strike, add look-ahead bonus (+2 rolls)
|
|
11. **Refactor:** Extract `_isStrike()`, clean up frame advancement
|
|
12. **Validate:** Perfect game test passes without modification!
|
|
|
|
### Key Insights
|
|
|
|
**Emergent Design:** The algorithm structure wasn't planned upfront. Tests for simple cases forced:
|
|
- Frame-based iteration (not roll-based)
|
|
- Index tracking (advancing by 1 or 2)
|
|
- Look-ahead logic (accessing future rolls)
|
|
|
|
**The Perfect Game Moment:** Writing code to handle "one spare" and "one strike" automatically handled "12 consecutive strikes" (300 points). The algorithm correctly models the domain, so all valid games work.
|
|
|
|
**State vs. Behavior:** Initially tempting to model Frame objects with state. TDD revealed a simpler truth: just store rolls and calculate on-demand. No frame objects needed.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Comparing the Katas
|
|
|
|
### Roman Numerals vs. Bowling Game
|
|
|
|
| Aspect | Roman Numerals | Bowling Game |
|
|
|--------|----------------|--------------|
|
|
| **Complexity** | Beginner | Intermediate |
|
|
| **State** | Stateless transformation | Stateful (rolls accumulate) |
|
|
| **Algorithm** | Table-driven lookup | Frame iteration with look-ahead |
|
|
| **Key Challenge** | Recognizing the pattern | Managing state and bonuses |
|
|
| **Design Pattern** | Value Object | Strategy-like (frame types) |
|
|
| **Lines of Code** | ~45 production | ~30 production |
|
|
| **Aha! Moment** | Table eliminates duplication | Simple tests → complex games work |
|
|
|
|
### What Each Kata Teaches
|
|
|
|
**Roman Numerals:**
|
|
- Converting domain rules into data structures
|
|
- Value Objects for enforcing constraints
|
|
- When to stop coding (algorithm emerges naturally)
|
|
|
|
**Bowling Game:**
|
|
- State management without over-engineering
|
|
- Look-ahead logic in sequential data
|
|
- How correct abstractions scale beyond test cases
|
|
|
|
### Progressive Learning Path
|
|
|
|
1. **Roman Numerals first:** Learn TDD fundamentals without state complexity
|
|
2. **Bowling Game second:** Apply TDD to stateful problems
|
|
3. **Next kata:** Choose based on what you want to practice:
|
|
- **String Calculator:** Parsing, validation, error handling
|
|
- **Gilded Rose:** Refactoring legacy code without tests
|
|
- **Mars Rover:** Command pattern, multiple behaviors
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## References
|
|
|
|
### General TDD & Clean Code
|
|
- [Clean Code by Robert C. Martin](https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/clean-code-a/9780136083238/)
|
|
- [Domain-Driven Design by Eric Evans](https://www.domainlanguage.com/ddd/)
|
|
- [Test-Driven Development by Kent Beck](https://www.amazon.com/Test-Driven-Development-Kent-Beck/dp/0321146530)
|
|
|
|
### Kata-Specific
|
|
- [Roman Numerals Rules](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals)
|
|
- [Bowling Scoring Rules](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-pin_bowling#Scoring)
|
|
- [Uncle Bob's Bowling Game Kata](http://butunclebob.com/ArticleS.UncleBob.TheBowlingGameKata)
|
|
|
|
## License
|
|
|
|
This is a learning exercise. Use freely for educational purposes.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**Following The Craftsman's Way: Quality is not negotiable.** |