Remove redundant analyzer comments for hamming and two-fer

[manumafe98]

Related issue: #96

The goal is to remove unnecessary comments, that will never trigger, because the analyzer only runs after the exercises passes the tests.

[manumafe98]

I have some doubts regarding this issue, for example the print statements and main method comments on the two-fer expected_analysis.json are necessary? they are not mentioned in the design.md

[manumafe98]

Also we should order the checks like the leap one for hamming and two fer? so we have some consistency? From what I've seen, is a folder for analyzer check.

[sanderploegsma]

I have some doubts regarding this issue, for example the print statements and main method comments on the two-fer expected_analysis.json are necessary? they are not mentioned in the design.md

These comments are left by the global analyzer, so they are not exercise-specific. That is why they are not mentioned in the design.md.

Also we should order the checks like the leap one for hamming and two fer? so we have some consistency? From what I've seen, is a folder for analyzer check.

Yes the smoke tests are a bit inconsistent, sorry for that. I think we should come up with some guidelines on how analyzers should be tested. My proposal would be:

• Unit tests should exist to obtain as much code coverage as possible. Correctness of each exercise analyzer should be tested that way.
• Each exercise should have at least two smoke tests: one with an optimal solution that receives no feedback, and one with a solution that receives at least one exercise-specific comment.
• Next to that, a few smoke tests to cover exercises for which no analyzer is implemented should be present too, to make sure the analyzer works properly for every exercise. By that I mean that it shouldn't crash or something.

Once we come up with some concrete guidelines, we should probably write them down in the docs.

[sanderploegsma]

Overall it looks good! I have left a couple of comments to look at but nothing major.

[manumafe98]

Oh I think this is outdated as well:

java-analyzer/tests/hamming/src/main/java/Hamming.java

Line 20 in aa58443

private void validateNotNull(String leftStrand, String rightStrand) {

@sanderploegsma just in case, because it wasn't on your pervious review

[sanderploegsma]

LGTM! I suggest you manually request a review from Erik to get the required admin approval, that way it's on his radar.

[sanderploegsma]

@ErikSchierboom please review this one as well