Rename Demolish to Deconstruct
This commit is contained in:
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ TEST_CASE("apply(PlaceBuildingCommand) with recipe matches place-then-setRecipe"
|
||||
REQUIRE(viaCommand.computeStateChecksum() == viaDirect.computeStateChecksum());
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
TEST_CASE("apply(DemolishCommand) matches direct demolish", "[command]")
|
||||
TEST_CASE("apply(DeconstructCommand) matches direct deconstruct", "[command]")
|
||||
{
|
||||
Simulation viaCommand(loadConfig(), 99);
|
||||
Simulation viaDirect(loadConfig(), 99);
|
||||
@@ -70,11 +70,11 @@ TEST_CASE("apply(DemolishCommand) matches direct demolish", "[command]")
|
||||
SimulationTestAccess::place(viaDirect, BuildingType::Miner, QPoint(-3, 0), Rotation::East).value();
|
||||
REQUIRE(idA == idB);
|
||||
|
||||
DemolishCommand command;
|
||||
DeconstructCommand command;
|
||||
command.id = idA;
|
||||
viaCommand.apply(command);
|
||||
|
||||
SimulationTestAccess::demolish(viaDirect, idB);
|
||||
SimulationTestAccess::deconstruct(viaDirect, idB);
|
||||
|
||||
REQUIRE(viaCommand.computeStateChecksum() == viaDirect.computeStateChecksum());
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -96,8 +96,8 @@ TEST_CASE("apply(CancelDeconstructionCommand) matches direct cancelDeconstructio
|
||||
viaCommand.tick();
|
||||
viaDirect.tick();
|
||||
}
|
||||
SimulationTestAccess::demolish(viaCommand, idA);
|
||||
SimulationTestAccess::demolish(viaDirect, idB);
|
||||
SimulationTestAccess::deconstruct(viaCommand, idA);
|
||||
SimulationTestAccess::deconstruct(viaDirect, idB);
|
||||
|
||||
CancelDeconstructionCommand command;
|
||||
command.id = idA;
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user