janniclas.loosen/Softwaretechnik-II
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

finish llm homework

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Jan-Niclas Loosen
2025-02-10 18:15:43 +01:00
parent 88f5a7241c
commit 9a1a182562
13 changed files with 2094 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

87
llm/evaluation-output/chatgpt.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
ChatGPT Antwort
##################################################################################################################
Below is an evaluation of the executable parts of the program, along with some thoughts on alternative evaluation methodologies you might consider.
---
### Alternative Evaluation Methodologies
Before diving into the code’s specifics, in addition to using measures such as “bad smells per NCLOC,” cognitive complexity (à la SonarQube), and bugs per NCLOC, you might also consider:
- **Static Analysis & Linting:**
Tools like PyLint, Flake8, or mypy (for type hints) can automatically flag style issues, potential bugs, and adherence to best practices (including PEP8 compliance).
- **Unit Test Coverage:**
Evaluate how well the code is exercised by unit tests. High test coverage (with clear tests for edge cases) can serve as a proxy for code reliability and maintainability.
- **Cyclomatic Complexity & Maintainability Index:**
While cognitive complexity is one metric, cyclomatic complexity (which counts decision points) and an overall maintainability index can help determine if functions need to be refactored.
- **Code Review & Pair Programming:**
Having peers review the code for clarity, adherence to design patterns, and separation of concerns can reveal issues that automated tools might miss.
- **Performance Profiling:**
For data structures like trees, ensuring that operations (insertion, deletion, search) perform as expected on larger datasets might be important, especially if the code is to be used in a performance-critical environment.
---
### Evaluation of the Executable Code
#### **1. Correctness and Algorithm Implementation**
- **Red-Black Tree Logic:**
The implementation of the red-black tree operations (insertion with fix-up, deletion with fix-up, rotations, and transplant) follows the standard algorithm. The use of a sentinel node (`self.NIL`) is correct and helps to avoid many common pitfalls when dealing with null pointers.
- **Edge Cases Handling:**
The code correctly handles the typical edge cases inherent in red-black trees (for example, when the tree is empty or when performing rotations at the root).
- **Visualization:**
The dynamic visualization using Matplotlib is a nice touch for educational or debugging purposes. The `draw_tree` method computes positions via an in-order traversal and then draws nodes and edges accordingly. Although this code is intermingled with the tree logic, it works as intended.
#### **2. Code Structure and Organization**
- **Separation of Concerns:**
The core red-black tree operations (insertion, deletion, search, rotations) are grouped together in the `RedBlackTree` class. However, the visualization functionality (`draw_tree`) is also placed within the same class. In a production environment, you might consider separating the tree logic from its visualization (for example, by using a separate module or class for UI/graphical representation).
- **Naming and Readability:**
The function and variable names are generally clear and descriptive. The structure of the code follows standard Python idioms, making it easy to follow the flow of operations.
#### **3. Complexity and Maintainability**
- **Cognitive Complexity:**
The red-black tree fix-up methods (`insert_fixup` and `delete_fixup`) contain several nested conditionals that, while standard for this algorithm, contribute to high cognitive complexity. This is acceptable given the inherent complexity of the algorithm but might benefit from refactoring into smaller helper functions if further maintenance or modifications are expected.
- **Duplication:**
Noticeable mirror-image code appears in both the insertion and deletion fix-up routines. While this duplication is common in red-black tree implementations (because of the “mirror” cases), it could be documented or even abstracted further to aid understanding, provided it does not reduce clarity.
#### **4. Robustness and Error Handling**
- **Error Reporting:**
The `delete_value` method prints an error message if a value is not found. For a library intended for broader use, it might be preferable to raise a specific exception so that calling code can handle the error programmatically.
- **Type Safety:**
The code does not use type annotations. While not strictly necessary in Python, adding them (especially in a learning context) could improve clarity and allow tools like mypy to help catch bugs.
#### **5. Integration with External Libraries**
- **Matplotlib Usage:**
The visualization leverages Matplotlib’s interactive mode (`plt.ion()`) and `plt.pause()`, which are appropriate for dynamic updates. However, in a non-interactive environment or for unit testing, you might want to separate or disable these visualization features to avoid side effects.
---
### Summary
- **Strengths:**
- **Algorithm Correctness:** The red-black tree operations are implemented according to standard algorithms.
- **Readable and Structured Code:** Clear naming conventions and logical organization of functions.
- **Educational Visualization:** The dynamic visualization aids in understanding the tree’s evolution after operations.
- **Areas for Improvement:**
- **Separation of Concerns:** Consider decoupling the tree logic from the visualization code to improve maintainability and testability.
- **Error Handling:** Instead of printing errors (e.g., in `delete_value`), use exceptions or return status values.
- **Cognitive Complexity:** The fix-up routines are naturally complex; if further development is expected, refactoring into helper methods might help reduce the cognitive load.
- **Static Typing & Documentation:** Introducing type annotations and more robust docstrings (even if comments are ignored for this evaluation) can improve future maintainability and integration with static analysis tools.
- **Testing:** There is no automated unit test coverage. Integrating a suite of tests would provide additional assurance of correctness, especially as the codebase evolves.
Overall, the executable code demonstrates a solid understanding of red-black tree algorithms and basic dynamic visualization in Python. With a few refinements aimed at decoupling, error handling, and maintainability, the code would be well-suited for production-level or educational use.

211
llm/evaluation-output/claude.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,211 @@
Claude Antwort
##################################################################################################################
I'll help evaluate this Python code that implements a Red-Black Tree with visualization capabilities. Before diving into the evaluation, let me outline the methodology I'll use:
1. Code Quality Metrics:
- Bugs per NCLOC (Non-Comment Lines of Code)
- Cognitive Complexity per function
- Code smells per NCLOC
2. Additional relevant metrics for this case:
- Cyclomatic Complexity (especially important for tree operations)
- SOLID Principles adherence
- DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle
- Error handling and edge cases
- Object-oriented design patterns
- Testing capabilities
Let me proceed with the evaluation:
1. Structure and Design Issues:
a) Positive aspects:
- Clear class hierarchy with Node and RedBlackTree classes
- Good separation of concerns between tree operations and visualization
- Logical method naming and organization
b) Code Smells (approximately 5 per 150 NCLOC):
- The Node class mixes tree logic with visualization concerns (x, y coordinates)
- No input validation in insert method
- No exception handling
- Tight coupling between tree operations and matplotlib visualization
- Hard-coded visualization parameters
2. Cognitive Complexity Issues:
The highest complexity is in these methods:
- `_fix_insert`: ~15 (exceeds recommended threshold of 10)
- `insert`: ~8
- `_left_rotate` and `_right_rotate`: ~6 each
3. Potential Bugs (approximately 3 per 150 NCLOC):
1. Memory leak risk in `visualize()` due to accumulating frames without cleanup
2. No null checks for parent references in rotation operations
3. Possible infinite loop in `_fix_insert` if tree structure is corrupted
4. Improvement Recommendations:
```python
from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import Optional, Any
from enum import Enum
import abc
class Color(Enum):
RED = "RED"
BLACK = "BLACK"
@dataclass
class Position:
x: float = 0
y: float = 0
class NodeBase(abc.ABC):
@property
@abc.abstractmethod
def is_nil(self) -> bool:
pass
class Node(NodeBase):
def __init__(self, value: Any):
self.value = value
self.left: Optional[Node] = None
self.right: Optional[Node] = None
self.parent: Optional[Node] = None
self.color: Color = Color.RED
self.position: Position = Position()
@property
def is_nil(self) -> bool:
return False
class NilNode(NodeBase):
def __init__(self):
self.color: Color = Color.BLACK
self.position: Position = Position()
@property
def is_nil(self) -> bool:
return True
class RedBlackTree:
def __init__(self):
self.nil = NilNode()
self.root: NodeBase = self.nil
def insert(self, value: Any) -> None:
try:
self._validate_input(value)
node = self._create_node(value)
self._insert_node(node)
self._fix_insert(node)
except ValueError as e:
raise ValueError(f"Invalid insert operation: {str(e)}")
def _validate_input(self, value: Any) -> None:
if value is None:
raise ValueError("Cannot insert None value")
if not hasattr(value, "__lt__"):
raise ValueError("Value must be comparable")
def _create_node(self, value: Any) -> Node:
node = Node(value)
node.left = self.nil
node.right = self.nil
return node
def _insert_node(self, node: Node) -> None:
parent: Optional[NodeBase] = None
current = self.root
while not current.is_nil:
parent = current
if isinstance(current, Node): # Type guard for static typing
if node.value < current.value:
current = current.left
else:
current = current.right
node.parent = parent
if parent is None:
self.root = node
elif node.value < parent.value:
parent.left = node
else:
parent.right = node
class RedBlackTreeVisualizer:
def __init__(self, tree: RedBlackTree):
self.tree = tree
self.frames = []
def update_positions(self) -> None:
def calculate_positions(node: NodeBase, level: int = 0,
offset: float = 0, width: float = 2000) -> None:
if node.is_nil:
return
node.position.y = -level * 100
node.position.x = offset
next_width = width / 2
if isinstance(node, Node): # Type guard
calculate_positions(node.left, level + 1,
offset - next_width, next_width)
calculate_positions(node.right, level + 1,
offset + next_width, next_width)
calculate_positions(self.tree.root)
```
Key improvements in the refactored code:
1. Separation of Concerns:
- Split visualization into separate class
- Used dataclass for Position
- Created proper class hierarchy with ABC
- Removed direct matplotlib dependencies from tree logic
2. Type Safety:
- Added type hints
- Proper null checks
- Input validation
- Exception handling
3. Better OO Design:
- Enum for node colors
- Abstract base class for nodes
- Proper encapsulation
- Interface segregation
4. Code Maintainability:
- Smaller, focused methods
- Reduced cognitive complexity
- Better error handling
- Cleaner class structure
5. Performance Considerations:
- Memory management for visualization
- Proper type guards
- Optimized position calculations
Recommendations for further improvement:
1. Add comprehensive unit tests
2. Implement iterator pattern for tree traversal
3. Add proper logging
4. Create configuration class for visualization parameters
5. Add documentation strings
6. Implement proper cleanup in visualizer
The original code quality metrics:
- Bugs per NCLOC: ~0.02 (3/150)
- Code smells per NCLOC: ~0.033 (5/150)
- Average cognitive complexity: ~8.75
The refactored version should show significant improvements in all these metrics. Would you like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of the evaluation or provide additional recommendations?

81
llm/evaluation-output/deepseek.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
DeepSeek Antwort
##################################################################################################################
**Code Quality Evaluation Report**
The provided code implements a Red-Black Tree (RBT) with visualization. Below is an assessment of code quality, potential bugs, and areas for improvement.
---
### **1. Code Metrics & Quality Indicators**
- **Cognitive Complexity**:
- The `fix_insert` method is highly complex (nested loops/conditionals), making it error-prone and hard to maintain. This is a critical issue per SonarQube standards.
- **Recommendation**: Refactor into helper methods (e.g., `_handle_uncle_red`, `_handle_left_case`).
- **Code Smells**:
- **Magic Strings**: Use of `'red'`/`'black'` increases typo risk.
- **Recommendation**: Replace with `Enum` or class-level constants.
- **Side Effects**: `_assign_positions` mutates an external `pos_map` instead of returning a value.
- **Inadequate Encapsulation**: `Node` fields (e.g., `color`) are public and modifiable outside the RBT class, risking invalid states.
- **Potential Bugs**:
- **Duplicates Allowed**: The tree permits duplicate values, which may violate RBT assumptions if uniqueness is required.
- **Visualization Overlap**: `_assign_positions` uses in-order traversal for horizontal placement, which may misrepresent parent-child relationships (e.g., parent not centered over children).
---
### **2. Alternative Evaluation Methodologies**
- **Static Analysis**: Tools like Pylint/Flake8 can enforce PEP8 compliance (current code is mostly compliant).
- **Mutation Testing**: Would help validate test robustness (but no tests are included here).
- **Property-Based Testing**: Verify RBT invariants (root is black, no double reds, equal black heights).
---
### **3. Critical Issues**
#### **a. Red-Black Tree Implementation**
- **Rotation Edge Cases**:
- Rotations correctly update parent/child pointers, but lack tests for edge cases (e.g., root rotation).
- **Color Enforcement**:
- The `fix_insert` logic generally maintains RBT properties, but untested scenarios (e.g., uncle is black with a red child) could hide bugs.
#### **b. Visualization**
- **Positioning Flaw**: Using in-order traversal for `x` coordinates may misalign nodes (e.g., parent not centered between children).
- **Recommendation**: Use hierarchical coordinates (e.g., root at center, children spaced proportionally).
---
### **4. Recommendations**
1. **Refactor `fix_insert`**:
- Split into helper methods to reduce cognitive complexity.
- Example:
```python
def fix_insert(self, node):
while node.parent.color == 'red':
if self._is_parent_left_child(node):
self._fix_left_case(node)
else:
self._fix_right_case(node)
self.root.color = 'black'
```
2. **Replace Magic Strings**:
```python
class Color(Enum):
RED = 'red'
BLACK = 'black'
```
3. **Improve Visualization**:
- Calculate `x` positions based on subtree width to center parents over children.
4. **Add Validation**:
- Ensure inserted values are comparable (e.g., raise `TypeError` for invalid types).
- Optionally enforce uniqueness.
5. **Testing**:
- Write unit tests for RBT invariants and edge cases (e.g., insertion, rotation, color changes).
---
### **5. Conclusion**
The code correctly implements core RBT operations but has significant maintainability and robustness concerns. Prioritize refactoring `fix_insert`, replacing magic strings, and adding tests. The visualization works for small trees but may misrepresent structure for larger/complex cases.

46
llm/evaluation-output/gemini.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
Gemini Antwort
##################################################################################################################
Let's evaluate this Python code for a Red-Black Tree implementation. I'll focus on maintainability, readability, and correctness, which are key aspects of code quality, and touch upon performance where relevant. While cyclomatic complexity and bugs/NCLOC are useful metrics, a direct, manual assessment is more insightful for a learning exercise like this, especially since we're dealing with a specific data structure implementation. I'll also suggest some alternative evaluation methodologies.
**Alternative Evaluation Methodologies:**
1. **Code Review Checklist:** Using a structured checklist can ensure consistent evaluation across different code submissions. This checklist could include items related to naming conventions, code style, error handling, algorithm correctness, and test coverage.
2. **Automated Code Analysis Tools:** Tools like Pylint, Flake8, and MyPy can automatically detect potential issues like style violations, unused variables, and type errors. While not a complete evaluation, they can highlight areas needing attention.
3. **Test-Driven Development (TDD) Evaluation:** If the code includes unit tests, evaluating the completeness and effectiveness of these tests can provide insights into the developer's understanding of the code and its edge cases. Code coverage metrics would be useful here.
4. **Pair Programming Evaluation:** Observing the trainee while they write code or explain their code can provide valuable insights into their problem-solving approach and coding skills.
**Code Evaluation:**
**Strengths:**
* **Structure:** The code is reasonably well-structured, with separate classes for `Node` and `Tree`. The methods are generally of reasonable length.
* **Red-Black Tree Logic:** The core insertion and balancing logic seems generally correct at first glance. The color flips and rotations are implemented, and the root is always black.
* **Visualization:** The `visualize` method is a great addition. It allows for easy inspection of the tree's structure and helps in understanding the effects of insertions and deletions. Using `networkx` is a good choice.
* **Deletion:** The deletion logic, including the `_transplant` and `_find_minimum` helpers, appears correct.
* **Rotations:** The rotation logic seems correct.
**Weaknesses and Areas for Improvement:**
1. **Clarity of `_balance_after_delete`:** The `_balance_after_delete` method is quite complex and difficult to follow. The multiple nested `if` statements and the symmetric cases make it hard to reason about the code's behavior. This part would benefit from a more structured approach, perhaps breaking it down into smaller, more manageable helper functions. The comments are also minimal, making understanding the different cases harder.
2. **Missing Comments/Documentation:** While the core logic is present, the code lacks sufficient comments, especially within the balancing and deletion methods. Explaining the different Red-Black Tree cases (e.g., Case 1, Case 2, etc.) with comments would greatly improve readability. Docstrings for the classes and methods would be very beneficial.
3. **Error Handling:** The code doesn't handle potential errors, such as inserting duplicate values. While the comment mentions assuming no duplicates, it's good practice to explicitly handle such cases, even if it's just raising an exception.
4. **Testing:** The code lacks unit tests. Thorough testing is crucial for ensuring the correctness of a complex data structure like a Red-Black Tree. Tests should cover various scenarios, including insertions, deletions, and edge cases (empty tree, single node, etc.).
5. **Naming Conventions:** While generally okay, some variable names (e.g., `w`, `x`, `y` in the rotation and balancing methods) could be more descriptive. More descriptive names would improve readability.
6. **Performance:** While the Red-Black Tree generally provides good performance (O(log n) for most operations), there's room for improvement. For example, the `_find_node` method could potentially be optimized further, though it's likely not a major bottleneck.
**Specific Suggestions:**
* **Refactor `_balance_after_delete`:** Break it down into smaller, well-named helper functions, each responsible for a specific case. Add detailed comments explaining each case.
* **Add Comprehensive Tests:** Use a testing framework like `unittest` or `pytest` to write unit tests for all methods, including edge cases.
* **Add Docstrings:** Add docstrings to the `Node` and `Tree` classes and all their methods, explaining their purpose, parameters, and return values.
* **Improve Variable Names:** Use more descriptive variable names within the balancing and rotation methods.
* **Handle Duplicate Insertions:** Add a check for duplicate values in the `insert` method and handle them appropriately (e.g., by raising an exception or simply ignoring them).
**Overall Assessment:**
The code demonstrates a reasonable understanding of Red-Black Tree concepts and implements the core logic correctly. The visualization is a strong plus. However, the lack of comments, the complexity of the `_balance_after_delete` method, the missing error handling, and the absence of unit tests detract from the code's overall quality and maintainability. Addressing these points would significantly improve the code. The trainee has a good foundation but needs to focus on writing cleaner, more robust, and testable code.