checks

[flok]

Hi,

Currently, when I've placed a stone, I regenerate the possible chains with for each chain a list of its liberties (I use that liberties-list to see if it is dead or not).
After that, I do an assert if the all chains of the color that just placed the stone, if they all have 1 or more liberties.

What I'm wondering: do you people know of any other useful sanity check to perform?


regards

[Rémi Coulom]

Hi Flok,

Here are in general the techniques I use to ensure quality of my C++ software:

• googletest for unit testing: https://github.com/google/googletest
• gcov to measure test coverage: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Gcov.html
• run tests with sanitizers: https://github.com/google/sanitizers
• memory sanitizer is a bit tricky to use (the standard C++ library must be recompiled), so I sometimes use valgrind instead: https://valgrind.org/
• compile gcc tests with the -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG option. This will do bounds checking for std containers, but not C arrays. That's why I use std::array instead of C arrays.
• use fuzzers: https://llvm.org/docs/LibFuzzer.html
• Static analysis: enable as many warnings as possible, use clang-tidy, MSVC's Code Analysis

[flok]

Hi Flok,

Here are in general the techniques I use to ensure quality of my C++ software:

• googletest for unit testing: https://github.com/google/googletest
• gcov to measure test coverage: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Gcov.html
• run tests with sanitizers: https://github.com/google/sanitizers
• memory sanitizer is a bit tricky to use (the standard C++ library must be recompiled), so I sometimes use valgrind instead: https://valgrind.org/
• compile gcc tests with the -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG option. This will do bounds checking for std containers, but not C arrays. That's why I use std::array instead of C arrays.
• use fuzzers: https://llvm.org/docs/LibFuzzer.html
• Static analysis: enable as many warnings as possible, use clang-tidy, MSVC's Code Analysis

Thank you but that was not what I meant: I'm looking for Go-specific checks. But, yeah, maybe it is like chess: more than move-gen-verification is not possible to do in a generic way.