Hit requirement untested

[nash8114]

There is a requirement for exercise ellens-alien-game's hit() method which states: "Make sure that the health points do not drop below zero." Adding a "get_health() == 0" at the end of the hit test now tests whether this is the case.

[github-actions]

Hello. Thanks for opening a PR on Exercism 🙂

We ask that all changes to Exercism are discussed on our Community Forum before being opened on GitHub. To enforce this, we automatically close all PRs that are submitted. That doesn't mean your PR is rejected but that we want the initial discussion about it to happen on our forum where a wide range of key contributors across the Exercism ecosystem can weigh in.

You can use this link to copy this into a new topic on the forum. If we decide the PR is appropriate, we'll reopen it and continue with it, so please don't delete your local branch.

If you're interested in learning more about this auto-responder, please read this blog post.

---

Note: If this PR has been pre-approved, please link back to this PR on the forum thread and a maintainer or staff member will reopen it.

[siebenschlaefer]

I like this additional test, I've seen a few solutions that did let the health become negative.
@vaeng, what do you think?

[vaeng]

Yes, that is a good addition.

I don't see what the code formatting check is complaining about though.

[nash8114]

To be fair I did not think to run a formater. I will look at it tomorrow and push a new commit if the formatting is off somehow. .

…

On Wednesday, September 11, 2024, Christian Willner < ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** approved this pull request. Yes, that is a good addition. I don't see what the code formatting check is complaining about though. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#901 (review)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACI4U62M7VNNDBGEHPVEWLZWCG2BAVCNFSM6AAAAABN6QWXMWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMZDEOJYGI4TEOJVGM> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[ahans]

Yes, that is a good addition.

I don't see what the code formatting check is complaining about though.

The issue is that the line is too long. I ran clang-format and pushed the fix. I also ran the test runner locally to make sure it parses this properly. Things seem fine. I think the only case where it has issues is when a single string is split over multiple lines. Different arguments of TEST_CASE can be on different lines with no issue.