Fixing Inconsistent Bet/Raise Logic In Game Engine

by Alex Johnson 51 views

Introduction

In software development, consistency is key. When dealing with numerical inputs, especially in financial or game-related contexts, discrepancies in logic can lead to significant bugs and user frustration. This article delves into an identified bug concerning the inconsistent handling of BET and RAISE actions within a game engine's logic, specifically highlighting the differences in how these actions are processed and the potential consequences. We will explore the technical analysis of the issue, propose solutions, and outline the acceptance criteria for resolving it, ensuring a more consistent and intuitive user experience. Maintaining consistency not only enhances user experience but also reduces the likelihood of errors and misunderstandings, making it a crucial aspect of software design and implementation.

Problem Description: The Bet/Raise Inconsistency

The core issue lies in the API's interpretation of BET and RAISE amounts. The API considers BET amounts as absolute values, representing the total chips a player intends to wager. However, RAISE amounts are treated as relative values, indicating the additional amount a player wishes to add on top of the existing call amount. This disparity in handling can lead to confusion and errors, particularly for frontend developers who must accurately translate user intentions into API calls. The inconsistency not only deviates from standard user interface (UI) conventions, where raises are typically expressed as the total amount a player intends to bet, but it also introduces a risk of significant miscalculations. This can result in players unintentionally wagering more than they intended, leading to a negative user experience and potential distrust in the game or platform. Therefore, addressing this inconsistency is crucial for ensuring fair play and maintaining user satisfaction.

Real-World Consequence

Consider a scenario where a player intends to "Raise to 300" when the current call amount is 100. If the frontend naively sends 300 as the raise amount to the backend, the following calculation occurs:

  • Backend Calculation: totalRaiseAmount = callAmount (100) + action.amount (300) = 400
  • Result: The player inadvertently bets 400, which is significantly more than their intended 300. This situation illustrates the practical implications of the inconsistent logic and underscores the need for a standardized approach to handling bet and raise amounts. Such discrepancies can erode user trust and lead to frustration, highlighting the importance of addressing this issue promptly and effectively.

Technical Analysis: Root Cause of the Bug

To pinpoint the exact location of the bug, we can look into the source code. Specifically, the file src/engine/game-logic.ts and the function applyPlayerAction are critical in understanding the logic behind bet and raise actions. A close examination of the code reveals the inconsistent treatment of BET and RAISE amounts.

Inconsistent Logic in Code

  • BET Handling:

    if (action.amount < hand.minBet) { ... }

    Line 243 demonstrates that the amount for a BET action is used directly as the stack deduction, representing the total bet amount.

  • RAISE Handling:

    const totalRaiseAmount = hand.callAmount + action.amount;

    Line 249 shows that the amount for a RAISE action is added to the current callAmount, indicating a relative increase rather than the total intended raise amount. This is where the inconsistency lies. The BET action uses the provided amount directly, while the RAISE action treats it as an increment to the existing call amount. This differing interpretation of the amount parameter between the two actions is the root cause of the bug. It leads to the unintended behavior described earlier, where players may bet more than they intended when raising. Addressing this requires either standardizing the interpretation of amount across both actions or clearly documenting and communicating the difference to prevent confusion.

Proposed Solutions and Acceptance Criteria

To resolve this inconsistency, we propose two potential solutions, each with its own set of considerations. Additionally, we define acceptance criteria to ensure the chosen solution effectively addresses the bug and maintains the integrity of the game engine.

Solution Options

  • Option A (Recommended): Standardize to "Raise To" Logic

    Modify the logic to interpret RAISE amounts as the total intended bet amount, aligning with common UI conventions. This approach simplifies the logic and reduces the risk of misinterpretation. By adopting a "Raise To" approach, the backend calculation would be streamlined to const totalRaiseAmount = action.amount. This change ensures that the amount provided in the action directly represents the total amount the player intends to bet, making the logic consistent with the handling of BET actions. Additionally, validation checks should be implemented to ensure that action.amount is greater than or equal to callAmount + minRaise, preventing invalid raise amounts.

  • Option B: Keep "Raise By" and Explicitly Document

    Retain the current "Raise By" logic but clearly document this behavior in the API schema. To further prevent confusion, rename the variable in the logic to raiseDelta. This option avoids altering the existing logic but necessitates thorough documentation and clear communication to frontend developers. By renaming the variable to raiseDelta, the code becomes more self-explanatory, indicating that the value represents a change in the bet amount rather than the total amount. This approach requires meticulous documentation in the API schema to ensure that developers understand how to correctly calculate and send raise amounts. While this option minimizes code changes, it places a greater emphasis on documentation and communication to prevent errors.

Acceptance Criteria

To ensure the chosen solution effectively addresses the inconsistency and maintains the integrity of the game engine, the following acceptance criteria must be met:

  • Standardize or Document:
    • [ ] Option A (Recommended): Change Logic to "Raise To". const totalRaiseAmount = action.amount. Ensure validation checks that action.amount >= callAmount + minRaise.
    • [ ] Option B: Keep "Raise By" but explicitly document this in the API schema and rename the variable in logic to raiseDelta to prevent confusion.
  • [ ] Update Schema: Ensure zod validators in src/ws/schemas.ts reflect the expected constraints for the chosen method. This step is crucial for maintaining data integrity and preventing invalid inputs from being processed. The schema should accurately reflect the expected format and constraints for bet and raise amounts, ensuring that the backend receives and processes the correct information. Whether the chosen solution is to standardize to "Raise To" logic or to keep "Raise By" with explicit documentation, the schema must be updated to align with the chosen approach.

Implementation Details

Option A: Standardizing to "Raise To" Logic

If we opt for the recommended approach of standardizing to "Raise To" logic, the following steps would be involved:

  1. Modify applyPlayerAction Function:

    • In src/engine/game-logic.ts, update the RAISE logic within the applyPlayerAction function. Specifically, change the calculation of totalRaiseAmount to:
      const totalRaiseAmount = action.amount;

  2. Implement Validation Checks:

    • Add validation checks to ensure that the action.amount is greater than or equal to the sum of the current callAmount and the minRaise. This prevents players from making invalid raise attempts.

  3. Update Zod Validators:

    • In src/ws/schemas.ts, adjust the Zod validators to reflect the new constraints for the RAISE action. This ensures that the schema accurately represents the expected input format and validation rules. This step is crucial for maintaining data integrity and preventing invalid inputs from reaching the game engine.

Option B: Keeping "Raise By" with Explicit Documentation

Alternatively, if we choose to keep the "Raise By" logic, the implementation would involve:

  1. Rename Variable:

    • In src/engine/game-logic.ts, rename the action.amount variable to raiseDelta within the RAISE logic. This change enhances code clarity by explicitly indicating that the value represents a delta rather than a total amount.

  2. Update API Schema:

    • Thoroughly document the "Raise By" behavior in the API schema. This documentation should clearly explain how raise amounts are calculated and the expected input format. Providing examples and use cases can further enhance clarity and prevent misunderstandings.

  3. Communicate Changes:

    • Ensure that frontend developers are fully aware of the "Raise By" logic and its implications. Clear communication is essential to prevent errors and ensure that the frontend correctly calculates and sends raise amounts to the backend. This may involve updating documentation, providing training sessions, or offering direct support to developers.

Conclusion

Addressing the inconsistent handling of BET and RAISE amounts in the game engine is crucial for ensuring a fair, intuitive, and error-free user experience. By standardizing the logic or providing clear documentation, we can mitigate the risk of miscalculations and enhance the overall quality of the platform. Whether we choose to adopt the "Raise To" logic or maintain the "Raise By" approach with explicit documentation, the key is to ensure consistency and clarity in the handling of user inputs. This not only prevents bugs but also builds trust and confidence among players. Remember, a well-designed system is one that aligns with user expectations and minimizes the potential for errors. By focusing on user experience and adhering to best practices in software design, we can create a more robust and enjoyable gaming environment. For further reading on best practices in API design and handling numerical inputs, consider exploring resources like the REST API Tutorial, which offers valuable insights into building consistent and user-friendly APIs.