Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix incorrect types in GameJson.analysis #292

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 14, 2023
Merged

Conversation

LukFil
Copy link
Contributor

@LukFil LukFil commented Dec 13, 2023

Hi, I've noticed that the documentation of GameJson.analysis does not quite match what the docs say.

The docs say that in analysis array, an item must have a key 'eval', that is number. Playing around with parsing the responses, I found that the behaviour is different: it seems that there is either 'eval' or 'mate', but never both. This is how I best would express it in Typescript:

type Judgment = {
  name: string;
  comment: string;
};

type BaseChessAnalysisItem = {
  best?: string;
  variation?: string;
  judgment?: Judgment;
};

type EvalAnalysisItem = BaseChessAnalysisItem & {
  eval: number;
  mate?: never; 
};

type MateAnalysisItem = BaseChessAnalysisItem & {
  mate: number;
  eval?: never; 
};

type AnalysisItem = EvalAnalysisItem | MateAnalysisItem;

type Analysis = AnalysisItem[];

I also went into lila source, code, and I believe that the appropriate code is in here, lines 12-35. Now, I am no scala wizard, but I am not certain it actually enforces here that either 'mate' or 'eval' but never both exist, so in my change I have simply removed 'eval' from the required array, and added 'mate' as another optional field.

If preferred, I am happy to implement it in the way to match the typescript description I provided.

Hope this is helpful,
Lukas

@ornicar ornicar merged commit 94a6a47 into lichess-org:master Dec 14, 2023
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants