User Tools

Site Tools


haas:fall2019:data:projects:dln0

Corning Community College

CSCS2320 Data Structures

Project: DLN0

Errata

This section will document any updates applied to the project since original release:

  • revision #: <description> (DATESTAMP)

Objective

In this project, we take our first opportunity to undergo a complete code re-write of node functionality, and we will also introduce the necessary functionality for doubly-linked node operations.

Procedure to obtain dln0

As this is a rewrite, dln0 is not based on any of the code you have written up to this point. As such, the transition process is slightly different.

grabit

Just as we did with the first project in the series, sln1, we can also use grabit to obtain this project:

lab46:~/src/data$ grabit data
ERROR: must specify class and project!
example:
    grabit discrete matrixadd

Projects available for data:
    * dln0
    * sln1

lab46:~/src/data$ 

So, we can just go ahead and do:

lab46:~/src/data$ grabit data dln0
...

And voila! Freshly grabbed dln0 in our ~/src/data/ directory.

Project Overview

For this project, we're going to be re-implementing MOST of the previous node and list functions. There have been a few changes, namely:

In inc/node.h

1
#ifndef _NODE_H
#define _NODE_H
 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Additional useful information in data.h
//
#include "data.h"
 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// node struct definition
//
struct node {
    union  info      payload;
    struct node     *left;
    struct node     *right;
};
 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// function prototypes
//
code_t mknode(Node **, char);    // allocate new node containing value
code_t cpnode(Node  *, Node **); // duplicate node
code_t rmnode(Node **);          // deallocate node
 
#endif

There is an addition of a “left” node pointer, to allow connections to our previous neighbors.

The node info element has been changed as well… instead of a singular value, it is now a union by the name of payload, which contains a value entry (a char entry), a data entry (Node pointer), and an other entry (a void pointer).

In inc/data.h

You'll notice that node.h includes a file called data.h; This header will contain predominantly useful #define statements, typedefs, and support function prototypes to make our lives easier. It will see additional content added with future projects.

1
#ifndef _DATA_H
#define _DATA_H
 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// We make use of NULL, so we need stdlib
//
#include <stdlib.h>
 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Set up union for node payload (multipurpose use)
//
union info {
    char         value;
    struct node *data;
    void        *other;
};
 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// node struct helper defines
//
#define  VALUE   payload.value
#define  DATA    payload.data
#define  OTHER   payload.other
 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// create some peers to NULL for our endeavors: UNDEFINED
//
#if !defined(UNDEFINED)
    #define UNDEFINED ((void*)1)
#endif
 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// custom types (mostly for shortening typing)
//
typedef struct node            Node;   // because we deserve nice things
typedef unsigned long long int code_t; // status code data type
typedef unsigned long long int ulli;
typedef   signed long long int slli;
 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Status codes for the doubly linked node implementation
//
#define  DLN_SUCCESS         0x0000000000000100
#define  DLN_MALLOC_FAIL     0x0000000000000200
#define  DLN_ALREADY_ALLOC   0x0000000000000400
#define  DLN_NULL            0x0000000000000800
#define  DLN_ERROR           0x0000000000001000
#define  DLN_INVALID         0x0000000000002000
#define  DLN_DEFAULT_FAIL    0x0000000000004000
#define  DLN_RESERVED_CODE   0x0000000000008000
 
#endif

node operation status codes

You'll notice the presence of a set of #define's in the data.h header file. These are intended to be used to report on various states of node status after performing various operations.

They are not exclusive- in some cases, multiple states can be applied. The intent is that you will OR together all pertinent states and return that from the function.

  • DLN_SUCCESS - everything went according to plan, no errors encountered, average case
  • DLN_MALLOC_FAIL - memory allocation failed (considered in error)
  • DLN_ALREADY_ALLOC - memory has already been allocated (considered in error)
  • DLN_NULL - result is NULL (probably in error)
  • DLN_DEFAULT_FAIL - default state of unimplemented functions (default error)
  • DLN_ERROR - some error occurred
  • DLN_INVALID - invalid use (NULL pointer)
  • DLN_RESERVED_CODE - reserved for future use (not used at present time)

For example, in the case of “DLN_MALLOC_FAIL”, there are actually a total of three states raised:

  • DLN_ERROR (a problem has occurred)
  • DLN_MALLOC_FAIL (a problem has occurred when using malloc())
  • DLN_NULL (no memory allocated, so node cannot be anything but NULL)

ALL THREE states must be returned from the function in question should such an occurrence take place.

You'll notice these #defines map to numeric values, and particular ones at that. This is to our supreme advantage: if you understand how numbers work, you should have an easy time of working with these status codes.

In inc/support.h

Finally we have support.h… this header will contain some information on helper functions utilized in the various unit tests. You really don't need to bother with this… in fact, do not use any of these functions in your implementation.

node library

In src/node/, you will find skeletons of what was previously there, ready for you to re-implement.

Figure out what is going on, the connections, and make sure you understand it.

Be sure to focus on implementing the functionality from scratch (the more you do this from scratch, vs. referencing old code, the more it will help you).

Expected Results

To assist you in verifying a correct implementation, a fully working implementation of the node and list libraries should resemble the following (when running the respective verify script):

node library

Here is what you should get for node:

lab46:~/src/data/dln0$ make check
======================================================
=    Verifying Doubly-Linked  Node Functionality     =
======================================================
    [mknode] Total:  12, Matches:  12, Mismatches:   0
    [cpnode] Total:  17, Matches:  17, Mismatches:   0
    [rmnode] Total:   4, Matches:   4, Mismatches:   0
======================================================
   [RESULTS] Total:  33, Matches:  33, Mismatches:   0
======================================================
lab46:~/src/data/dln0$ 

Submission

Project Submission

When you are done with the project and are ready to submit it, you simply run make submit:

lab46:~/src/data/PROJECT$ make submit
...

Submission Criteria

To be successful in this project, the following criteria must be met:

  • Project must be submit on time, by the posted deadline.
    • Early submissions will earn 1 bonus point per full day in advance of the deadline.
      • Bonus eligibility requires an honest attempt at performing the project (no blank efforts accepted)
    • Late submissions will lose 25% credit per day, with the submission window closing on the 4th day following the deadline.
      • To clarify: if a project is due on Wednesday (before its end), it would then be 25% off on Thursday, 50% off on Friday, 75% off on Saturday, and worth 0% once it becomes Sunday.
      • Certain projects may not have a late grace period, and the due date is the absolute end of things.
  • all requested functions must be implemented in the related library
  • all requested functionality must conform to stated requirements (either on this project page or in comment banner in source code files themselves).
  • Output generated must conform to any provided requirements and specifications (be it in writing or sample output)
    • output obviously must also be correct based on input.
  • Processing must be correct based on input given and output requested
  • Project header files are NOT to be altered. During evaluation the stock header files will be copied in, which could lead to compile-time problems.
  • Code must compile cleanly.
    • Each source file must compile cleanly (worth 3 total points):
      • 3/3: no compiler warnings, notes or errors.
      • 2/3: one of warning or note present during compile
      • 1/3: two of warning or note present during compile
      • 0/3: compiler errors present (code doesn't compile)
  • Code must be nicely and consistently indented (you may use the indent tool)
    • You are free to use your own coding style, but you must be consistent
    • Avoid unnecessary blank lines (some are good for readability, but do not go overboard- double-spacing your code will get points deducted).
    • Indentation will be rated on the following scale (worth 3 total points):
      • 3/3: Aesthetically pleasing, pristine indentation, easy to read, organized
      • 2/3: Mostly consistent indentation, but some distractions (superfluous or lacking blank lines, or some sort of “busy” ness to the code)
      • 1/3: Some indentation issues, difficult to read
      • 0/3: Lack of consistent indentation (didn't appear to try)
  • Unless fundamentally required, none of your code should perform any inventory or manual counting. Basing your algorithms off such fixed numbers complicates things, and is demonstrative of a more controlling nature.
  • Code must be commented
    • Any “to be implemented” comments MUST be removed
      • these “to be implemented” comments, if still present at evaluation time, will result in points being deducted.
    • Commenting will be rated on the following scale (worth 3 total points):
      • 3/3: Aesthetically pleasing (comments aligned or generally not distracting), easy to read, organized
      • 2/3: Mostly consistent, some distractions or gaps in comments (not explaining important things)
      • 1/3: Light commenting effort, not much time or energy appears to have been put in.
      • 0/3: No original comments
      • should I deserve nice things, my terminal is usually 90 characters wide. So if you'd like to format your code not to exceed 90 character wide terminals (and avoid line wrapping comments), at least as reasonably as possible, those are two sure-fire ways of making a good impression on me with respect to code presentation and comments.
    • Sufficient comments explaining the point of provided logic MUST be present
  • Code must be appropriately modified
    • Appropriate modifications will be rated on the following scale (worth 3 total points):
      • 3/3: Complete attention to detail, original-looking implementation- also is not unnecessarily reinventing existing functionality
      • 2/3: Lacking some details (like variable initializations), but otherwise complete (still conforms, or conforms mostly to specifications), and reinvents some wheels
      • 1/3: Incomplete implementation (typically lacking some obvious details/does not conform to specifications)
      • 0/3: Incomplete implementation to the point of non-functionality (or was not started at all)
    • Implementation must be accurate with respect to the spirit/purpose of the project (if the focus is on exploring a certain algorithm to produce results, but you avoid the algorithm yet still produce the same results– that's what I'm talking about here).. worth 3 total points:
      • 3/3: Implementation is in line with spirit of project
      • 2/3: Some avoidance/shortcuts taken (note this does not mean optimization– you can optimize all you want, so long as it doesn't violate the spirit of the project).
      • 1/3: Generally avoiding the spirit of the project (new, different things, resorting to old and familiar, despite it being against the directions)
      • 0/3: entirely avoiding.
    • Error checking must be adequately and appropriately performed, according to the following scale (worth 3 total points):
      • 3/3: Full and proper error checking performed for all reasonable cases, including queries for external resources and data.
      • 2/3: Enough error checking performed to pass basic project requirements and work for most operational cases.
      • 1/3: Minimal error checking, code is fragile (code may not work in full accordance with project requirements)
      • 0/3: No error checking (code likely does not work in accordance with project requirements)
  • Any and all non-void functions written must have, at most, 1 return statement
    • points will be lost for solutions containing multiple return statements in a function.
  • Absolutely, positively NO (as in ZERO) use of goto statements.
    • points will most definitely be lest for solutions employing such things.
  • Track/version the source code in a repository
  • Filling out any submit-time questionnaires
  • Submit a copy of your source code to me using the submit tool (make submit will do this) by the deadline.
haas/fall2019/data/projects/dln0.txt · Last modified: 2018/10/15 10:37 by 127.0.0.1