snowprint
54f427ea21
Some checks failed
Deploy to GitHub Pages / build-and-deploy (push) Has been cancelled
54 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
54 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
# Research: Geek Calculator Implementation
|
|
|
|
## Key Unknowns Identified
|
|
- Error handling for invalid expressions
|
|
- Behavior for calculations that exceed numerical limits
|
|
- Limits to calculation history storage
|
|
- Specific percentage operation behaviors
|
|
- Response to inputs exceeding v1 scope
|
|
|
|
## Research Findings
|
|
|
|
### Decision: Error Handling for Invalid Expressions
|
|
**Rationale**: For invalid expressions like "5 // 0" or "5 + * 3", the calculator will display "Error" in the display area and require clearing before continuing.
|
|
**Alternatives considered**: Alternative was to show specific error messages (e.g., "Division by zero", "Invalid syntax") but the simpler "Error" approach maintains the minimal UI aesthetic.
|
|
|
|
### Decision: Overflow and Large Number Handling
|
|
**Rationale**: For calculations that exceed JavaScript's numerical limits, the calculator will show "Infinity" or "-Infinity" for overflow, and "0" for underflow.
|
|
**Alternatives considered**: Could have implemented custom large number handling but this would increase code size beyond 50KB target.
|
|
|
|
### Decision: Calculation History Storage
|
|
**Rationale**: History will be stored in localStorage with a limit of 50 entries. When limit is reached, oldest entries are removed.
|
|
**Alternatives considered**: Unlimited history was considered but would risk localStorage quota exhaustion and performance degradation.
|
|
|
|
### Decision: Percentage Operation Behavior
|
|
**Rationale**: Percentage operations will follow standard calculator behavior: "100 + 10%" = 110, "50%" = 0.5, "100 * 5%" = 5.
|
|
**Alternatives considered**: Scientific calculator percentage behavior (like "100 + 10%" = 100.1) was considered but standard behavior is more familiar to users.
|
|
|
|
### Decision: Handling Out-of-Scope Functions
|
|
**Rationale**: For inputs that exceed v1 scope (like scientific functions), the calculator will display "Error" to maintain focus on core features.
|
|
**Alternatives considered**: Ignoring invalid inputs silently was considered but providing feedback is better for user experience.
|
|
|
|
## Technology Decisions
|
|
|
|
### Decision: Vanilla JS Modules Architecture
|
|
**Rationale**: Using ES6 modules will provide clean separation of concerns while maintaining zero dependencies as required by the constitution.
|
|
**Alternatives considered**: Single file vs. modular approach; modular was chosen for maintainability despite the single-file requirement for the final deliverable.
|
|
|
|
### Decision: RPN Implementation
|
|
**Rationale**: Implementing RPN with a stack data structure will provide the required functionality while keeping the code efficient.
|
|
**Alternatives considered**: String-based RPN processing vs. stack-based; stack-based was chosen for better performance and clearer code.
|
|
|
|
### Decision: Testing Framework
|
|
**Rationale**: A minimal custom test harness will be implemented to avoid external dependencies while providing necessary test coverage.
|
|
**Alternatives considered**: External testing libraries like Jest were considered but rejected to maintain zero dependencies requirement.
|
|
|
|
### Decision: Service Worker Strategy
|
|
**Rationale**: A cache-first service worker will ensure full offline functionality as required by the constitution.
|
|
**Alternatives considered**: Network-first or stale-while-revalidate strategies were considered but cache-first better ensures offline capability.
|
|
|
|
## Accessibility Implementation
|
|
|
|
### Decision: ARIA Roles and Keyboard Navigation
|
|
**Rationale**: Using semantic HTML with appropriate ARIA roles and comprehensive keyboard event handling will meet WCAG requirements.
|
|
**Alternatives considered**: Custom accessibility solutions vs. standard HTML patterns; standard patterns were chosen for better compatibility and maintainability. |