Test Cases Documentation: QuickTimeEvent System

1. Overview

The QuickTimeEvent system consists of two main components:

• QuickTimeEventActions: Manages the QTE lifecycle and game state transitions
• QuickTimeEventDisplay: Handles the UI rendering and user interaction

This test documentation covers both components' functionality, integration, and performance characteristics.

2. QuickTimeEvent Tests

2.1 UI Component Initialization

ID	Test Case	Input	Expected Output	Preconditions
UI1	Load combat screen with UI components	Component creation	All UI elements properly initialized	Game, Screen, Entities and Buttons are initialized and loaded properly
UI2	Asset loading	Resource paths	Assets loaded correctly	Valid asset files
UI3	Table layout	Window dimensions	Correct component positioning	Button Stage initialized Entity stats loaded

2.2 Input Handling In QTE

ID	Test Case	Input	Expected Output	Preconditions
IH1	Button click to initiate events in QTE	Click events	Appropriate event triggers	UI fully initialized
IH2	QTE timing window	Button press within window	Perfect hit registered	QTE active
IH3	QTE timing - too early	Early button press	Fast indicator shown	QTE active
IH4	QTE timing - too late	Late/no button press	Slow indicator shown	QTE active

2.3 Visual Feedback

ID	Test Case	Input	Expected Output	Preconditions
VF1	Target image updates	Image state change	Correct texture displayed	Assets loaded
VF2	Score display	Score change	Updated score text	Display initialized
VF3	QTE animation	Animation trigger	Correct scaling/rotation	QTE component active
VF4	Background rendering	Draw call	Background properly rendered	SpriteBatch available

2.4 State Management

ID	Test Case	Input	Expected Output	Preconditions
SM1	Countdown initialization	Start event	count = 3, label updated	Component created
SM2	Update cycle	Time progression	Correct count updates	Countdown active
SM3	Screen transition	Count reaches 0	Combat screen loaded	Game instance available

3. Integration Tests

3.1 Component Communication

ID	Test Case	Input	Expected Output	Preconditions
CC1	Action-Display sync	State changes	Components properly synchronized	Both components active
CC2	Score propagation	QTE completion	Score correctly transferred	Full system running
CC3	Screen flow	Sequence completion	Proper game flow maintained	All components active

3.2 Resource Management

ID	Test Case	Input	Expected Output	Preconditions
RM1	Asset Availability	Screen Sequencing	Proper loading/unloading	Required Services registered correctly
RM2	Service locator usage	Service requests	Correct service provision	ServiceLocator registered

4. Integration Test Failures and Impacts

Several integration tests have failed, revealing significant issues in the QuickTimeEvent system:

1. Score Propagation Failure (CC2): The test for transferring scores between screens failed, indicating a major issue in the combat manager. This requires a substantial refactoring of how scores are passed between different game screens.

2. Screen Flow Disruption (CC3): The test for maintaining proper game flow after QTE sequence completion failed. This suggests that the transitions between the QTE system and other game components are not functioning correctly.

3. Animation and UI Component Issues: The failures in tests VF3 and VF4 indicate that the animations and UI components in the combat stats display are not working as expected. This necessitates a major refactoring of these elements.

These failures are causing ripple effects throughout the codebase, particularly in the combat manager and related UI components. The need for extensive refactoring highlights potential architectural issues in the game's design.

5. Existing Code Quality Issues

The integration test failures have brought attention to pre-existing issues in the main game code:

1. Circular Dependencies: The codebase suffers from extensive circular dependencies, with this class being part of 98 cycles containing 87 classes. This issue has been flagged in the SonarCloud.

2. Impact of Circular Dependencies:

   • Disrupts dependency hierarchy and layer structure between packages
   • Increases architectural complexity
   • Reduces code readability, extensibility, and maintainability
   • Leads to the creation of more circular dependencies as the project grows
   • Increases technical debt
   • Makes future refactoring increasingly difficult

These issues compound the problems revealed by the integration test failures, making the necessary refactoring more challenging and time-consuming.

6. Conclusions

The integration test failures and existing code quality issues have revealed significant challenges in the QuickTimeEvent system as we realized the overall game architecturedoes not leave enough room to integrate quick time events bug free. Therefore, due to time constraints and the need to maintain a baseline functional game, implementing major changes was not feasible. Here are the key conclusions:

Architectural Limitations: The circular dependencies, particularly those crossing package boundaries, represent a significant architectural challenge. These issues increase the complexity of the codebase and make it difficult to implement clean solutions for the problems identified in the integration tests.

Combat Manager Constraints: The score propagation failure highlighted issues in the combat manager. While a complete refactoring would be ideal, the team had to settle for minimal adjustments to ensure basic functionality.

UI and Animation Compromises: The failures in animation and UI component tests for the combat stats display required attention. However, only minor tweaks could be made to ensure the game remained playable, leaving room for future improvements.

Screen Flow Workarounds: The screen flow disruption after QTE sequence completion was addressed with temporary fixes rather than a comprehensive redesign of the transition mechanism.

Technical Debt Accumulation: The inability to address the root causes of these issues, particularly the circular dependencies, has resulted in increased technical debt. Which was made apparent while trying to integrate Quick Time Events.

Testing Limitations: While the integration tests revealed critical issues, the team couldn't allocate time to significantly increase test coverage or implement more robust testing practices.

Baseline Functionality Priority: Given the project constraints, maintaining and refining the existing functional baseline took precedence over architectural improvements. This decision allowed the team to deliver a playable game but left underlying issues unresolved.

Learning Opportunity: This experience has provided valuable insights into the importance of early architectural decisions and the challenges of managing technical debt in game development projects with tight deadlines.

Documentation Value: Despite the limitations in implementing changes, the comprehensive test documentation and identification of issues serve as a valuable resource for future development efforts.

These conclusions reflect the reality of game development under constraints, where balancing immediate functionality with long-term code quality is an ongoing challenge. While the team couldn't implement ideal solutions, they've gained important insights that can inform future development practices and priorities.