Construct the input data

Learning Goal: I’m working on a java question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.

File Summary

    • findCounterExample (you implement this)
    • generateInput (you implement this)
    • isValidPartitionResult (you implement this)
  • You will write your tests of the methods above here
  • (do not edit this)
  • (do not edit this): Defines the signature of the partition method implemented by all sorters. You will implement this interface several times to test findCounterExample.
    • For your implementation found on the Web that you will adapt to implement Partitioner
    • A concrete class which implements Partitioner and utilizes a central pivot (you implement this)
    • A concrete class which implements Partitioner and utilizes the first element as the pivot (you implement this)

Part I: A Bad (and Good) Implementation Detector


So far in this class, we have usually written tests by following this process:

  1. Construct the input data
  2. Perform an operation
  3. Check that the resulting data is equal to some expected value

This works well for writing a small or medium number of tests targeted at particularly interesting cases. Checking specific output values, however, isn’t the only or necessarily the best way to test and gain confidence in an implementation. In fact, sometimes it won’t work at all.

Consider the partition helper method of quick sort as an interface (here we’ll restrict it to just partitioning arrays of Strings):

interface Partitioner {
  // Change strs between start (inclusive) and end (exclusive), such that
  // all values at indices lower than a pivot index are smaller than or equal
  // to the value at the pivot, and all values at indices higher than the pivot
  // are larger than or equal to the value at the pivot

  int partition(String[] strs, int start, int end);

In lecture and discussion, we noted that there are many ways to implement partition, in particular the choice of the pivot index is important. Not only could we choose different pivots, but one choice is to have a random choice of pivot! Let’s imagine writing a test for a Partitioner:

class PartitionerFromLecture implements Partitioner {
  public int partition(String[] strs, int low, int high) {
    int pivotStartIndex = Random.nextInt(high - low);
    ... implementation from lecture ...
public void testPartitionerFromLecture() {
  Partitioner p = new PartitionerFromLecture();
  String[] input = {"z", "b", "a", "f"};
  int pivot = p.partition(input, 0, 4);

  assertArrayEquals(???, input); // What to expect?
  assertEquals(???, pivot);

For two items, there are some clever solutions. You can use special matchers, for instance.

Instead of writing out all the tests by hand, we should step back from the problem. We really care that the array is correctly partitioned – there shouldn’t be elements larger than the pivot value at earlier indices, or elements smaller than the pivot value at later indices. There are other properties, too, like all the elements that were in the input list should appear the same number of times in the output list – if partition duplicates or loses elements, it isn’t doing its job!

So, instead of writing single tests, we should write methods that, given a partition algorithm, check if it satisfies some desired properties that partitioning ought to. Properties sufficient to show a valid partitioning are:

  • All the elements in the original array are present in the array after we call partition
  • No values at indices other than those from low (inclusive) to high (exclusive) changed their values
  • The elements from low to high are correctly partitioned:
    • partition returns some pivot index between low (inclusive) and high (exclusive)
    • At all indices from low up to the pivot index the string is smaller than or equal to (according to compareTo) the value at the pivot index
    • At all indices from the pivot index up to high - 1, the string is larger than or equal to (according to compareTo) the value at the pivot index


You will turn the properties above into code that checks if a given result from partition is valid. That means your program will decide, for any call to partition, if it behaves as we’d expect. Further, we can extend this idea to build a method that takes a Partitioner and returns null if we believe it to be a good partitioner, and a CounterExample if we can find an input array and low/high bounds that partition incorrectly:

CounterExample findCounterExample(Partitioner p);

CounterExample is defined to contain:

  • The input to a call to partition (an array, a low index, and a high index)
  • The result of a call to partition (an array and a returned pivot index)
  • reason, as a String, that you choose in order to describe why it is invalid. Some suggestions are below.

You will write a version of CounterExample and use it to check multiple different partition implementations, some good and some bad. Note that, even beyond the argument above about randomness, there are multiple possible correct implementations of partition.

You must implement two methods to help you implement CounterExample; you can implement other helpers as you see fit. The two methods you must implement are:

 * Return null if the pivot and after array reflect a correct partitioning of 
 * the before array between low and high.
 * Return a non-null String (your choice) describing why it isn't a valid
 * partition if it is not a valid result. You might choose Strings like these,
 * though there may be more you want to report:
 * - "after array doesn't have same elements as before"
 * - "Item before pivot too large"
 * - "Item after pivot too small"
String isValidPartitionResult(String[] before, int low, int high, int pivot, String[] after)
 * Generate a list of items of size n
String[] generateInput(int n);

This method should create a list of items to use as input to purported partition algorithms. It’s up to you how it generates the items; it should produce an array of length n, however.


Here’s one way you might approach this problem:

  • First, implement and test isValidPartitionResult. Think of several interesting individual cases (specific arrays and low/high bounds) you can imagine in a first pass, and test it on those cases. Note that to test isValidPartitionResult, you will be creating pairs of arrays of strings for input and expected output (at first, by hand), and checking both for success and for failure: you should have some tests where the after parameter and pivot describe an incorrect partitioning, and some correct.
  • Implement generateInput in a simple way – make n Strings of random single characters. Test that the method returns the right number of elements without any errors.
  • Implement a (really) incorrect version of Partitioner, that makes no changes at all to the underlying array in its partition method. Implement a good version of Partitioner as well (you can take the one from class/discussion), adapted to work as a Partitioner.
  • Try putting together a first version of findCounterExample. It could create a single list using generateInput, partition it with the given partitioner, check if it was sorted correctly using isValidPartitionResult, and return null if it partitioned correctly or a CounterExample if it didn’t. Note: you will need to save the original array, since sorters can and will make changes to them! You can use Arrays.copyOf to make a copy of an array:
    String[] input1 = {"a", "b", "c", "a"};
    String[] original1 = Arrays.copyOf(input1, input1.length);

    With this flow, you can test that findCounterExample returns null when passed the good partitioner, and a CounterExample when given the bad partitioner. The testing methods assertNull and assertNotNull can be helpful here.

  • Note that you should generate multiple lists and test several partitions in findCounterExample to properly vet each partitioner.

You can write these tests in (yes, the tester has its own tests!). This will get you through the beginning of the problem, and familiar with all the major interfaces. With this in hand, you can proceed with more refined tests. Here are some ideas:

  • Make a copy of the good Partitioner you wrote, and change it in a subtle way, maybe change a < to a <= in comparison or vice versa. Is it still a good partitioner? Can your findCounterExample check that?
  • Make a copy of the good Partitioner you wrote and change it in an obviously breaking way, maybe by setting an element to the wrong value. Does findCounterExample correctly return some CounterExample for this implementation?
  • Change findCounterExample to call generateInput many times, and check that all the generated lists sort correctly, returning the first failure as a CounterExample if it didn’t.
  • Feel free to add some interesting hand-written cases to findCounterExample where you use interesting input lists that you construct by hand. You can combine whether they sort correctly or not (e.g. partition them and then check isValidPartitionResult).
  • Use the two partition implementations that you wrote and the implementation you found on the web (below) to check if they are good or bad.
  • The java.util.Random class has useful tools for generating random numbers and strings. You can create a random number generator and use it to get random integers from 0 to a bound, which you can combine with ASCII codes to get readable random strings:
    Random r = new Random();
    int asciiForACapLetter = r.nextInt(26) + 65;  // Generates a random letter from A - Z
    String s = Character.toString((char)(asciiForACapLetter));
  • You may find it useful to copy the arrays into lists so you can remove elements and use other list operations in your oracle. This is a useful one-line way to copy an array into an ArrayList:
    List<String> afterAsList = new ArrayList<>(Arrays.asList(after));

Overall, your goal is to make it so findCounterExample will return null for any reasonable good partition implementation, and find a CounterExample for any bad partition implementation with extremely high probability. We will provide you with a bunch of them to test against while the assignment is out, and we may test on more than we provide you in the initial autograder.

We won’t test on truly crazy situations, like a partitioner that only fails when passed lists of 322 elements, or when a one of the strings in the array is "Henry". The bad implementations will involve things logically related to sorting and manipulating lists, like boundary cases, duplicates, ordering, length, base cases, and comparisons, as a few examples.


Assume that there are no null items in the arrays, that sorts won’t putnull items in the arrays, and that the variables holding lists of items won’t contain null. There are plenty of interesting behavior to consider without it!

Don’t have your implementation of findCounterExample take more than a few seconds per sorting implementation. You don’t need to create million element lists to find the issues, and it will just slow down grading. You should focus on generating (many, maybe hundreds or thousands of) small interesting lists rather than a few big ones, which should process very quickly.

Part II: Implementing Different Partitions

When you’re learning, it’s useful to write implementations yourself to gain experience. Your task now will be to write three partition methods that differ in the way they choose the initial pivot value. There are many different way to choose the pivot value, but the two we ask you to implement are listed below. You are welcome to search for solutions on the internet to solve this portion of the PA. Include a link to wherever you found an internet solution if you do use a solution from the interent.

  • Central Pivot Value: The initial pivot value should be chosen as the middle index in the similar range as above. For example if start is 1 and end is 4, the middle index should be 2.
  • First index as Pivot Value: The initial pivot value should be chosen as the first index, i.e the value at the index, start.

Put these implementations in the corresponding files:


All these files should contain classes that implement the Partitioner interface, which means that the partition method you are expected to implement should follow the method signature provided in that interface. Both implementations will return the final pivot position and maintain the correct behavior where all values that are less than the pivot should be stored before it and all values greater than the pivot should be store after it. One way to check whether your implementations are correct is to use findCounterExample from part I to determine if a counterexample can be generated for your partition, provided that your code from part I is correct and thorough. If a counterexample is generated that means that there is likely an error and you can use that to debug your program.

Part III: Copying Code from the Internet

There’s a lot of code out there in the world. Much of it is available, with permissive licensing, for free on the Web. When you’re learning, it’s often useful to write implementations yourself to gain experience. However, there are also skills related to finding and re-using code, rather than writing your own from scratch. These skills are useful to develop, and come with their own set of best practices.

When you re-use or repurpose code, there are two main concerns:

  • Are you allowed, legally and ethically? Your course, company, or institution may have its own rules, and there are laws about how you can re-use or modify code depending on its software license. There are also simple intellectual honesty issues around giving credit to the right sources. It may be the case that you shouldn’t even be looking at other code that solves your problem. This is usually the case in programming courses, for example.
  • More practically, does the code actually do what you want? If it’s a method, are the inputs and outputs the types your program will expect? Does it match your performance expectations in terms of its runtime? If you need to change it to adapt to your application, will that invalidate any assumptions of the original version?

For this assignment, you must go find a single partition implementation in Java on the Web. You should document the source you got it from clearly, and adapt it to fit the Partitioner interface that partitions Strings. For each implementation you find, you write in a header comment with the method:

  • Where it came from as a URL, and list the author (usernames or emails count!) if you can identify the author
  • A URL for the license or other rules posted for the re-use of the code. In code repositories like those on Github, this will usually be in a file called LICENSE or LICENSE.txt in the root of the repository. Here’s one for openjdk, a free and open source Java implementation, for example. Don’t use code for which you can’t find the rules of re-use!
  • Describe what changes you made to adapt it to this problem
  • Indicate if it was buggy or not (by using handwritten tests, or potentially by using your tester, if you have it ready) and why
  • Describe the worst case of its runtime behavior using a tight big-O bound

Put the implementation you adapt in the provided file

A search engine is your friend here. Searching “Java partition implementation” or “Java quicksort implementation” is a fine way to start. Searching “java partition implementation” gives a bunch of promising options, as well. Have fun searching, there’s lots of cool stuff out there!

NOTE: This part of the assignment comes with a deliberate, narrow exception to the Academic Integrity policy for the course. You shouldn’t, in any other assignment (or other parts of this assignment) go hunting for code on the Web that solves the assignment for you. You certainly shouldn’t do it in other classes or at your job unless you know it’s acceptable to do so – you should always know and consult the policies relevant to your current context. We (the instructors) know how to search for code on the Web. So do intellectual property attorneys, to extend the analogy to the professional context.

Asking for Help

The coding task for this assignment is to implement and test findCounterExample along with the two partition methods. You are free to go to help hours for assistance, but be aware that tutors may not be able to directly answer your questions or debug your program.

Answers to FAQ

  • The input arrays are string arrays of letters, not numeric strings like {“1”, “2”, “3”}.
  • The implementation of generateInput() is completely up to you, as long as you generate n items for your string array
  • If you receive a TimeOutException in the tests, this means that your code takes too long to run a specified test on Gradescope. You may want to check for infinite loops inside of your own code. It also means your code might be crashing and throwing an exception (such as IndexOutOfBoundsException).
  • You are allowed to use code from lecture slides, discussion slides/videos, and zybooks.
  • We will not be testing invalid low/high values, nor will we test empty arrays.
  • If you are receiving a TimeOutException for the PartitionBad implementations, try using values other than high=array.length in your findCounterExample.
  • When low == high, the partition method should not change the array passed in. You can, but are not required to account for this case in your partition implementations because this is technically invalid input. Therefore, you should not use low == high input in your findCounterExample.
  • File headers are not a part of the style guidelines, similar to PA3.
  • Please remove any and all main methods that you added to your code for testing before submitting.
  • For an implementation of partition() you find online, as long as you find the url for its source and license for use (e.g. Creative Commons, MIT, etc.), you can use that implementation for your WebPartitioner.
  • You don’t need to intentionally find a buggy web partitioner, but you do need to indicate if your partitioner is buggy.


The style guidelines are the same as PA3, with the following additions:

  • Lines must not be indented more than 6 times. If you have a need to indent more than 6 levels, build a helper method or otherwise reorganize your code.
  • If you write a helper method with a body longer than 2 statements, you must add a header comment (a comment above the method) that summarizes what it does in English.

The remark about redundant inline commenting from PA3 is still a recommendation, not something we will enforce.


On the Gradescope assignment Programming Assignment 5 – code please submit the following files:


You may encounter errors if you submit extra files or directories. You may submit as many times as you like till the deadline.

Scoring (40 points total)

  • 10 points: isValidPartitionResult, graded automatically
  • 5 points: generateInput, graded automatically
  • 11 points: findCounterExample, graded by how it performs on good and bad partitions that we provide, graded automatically
  • 6 points: (3 points each) for and, graded automatically
  • 3 points: The sort implementation you find online and describe [manually graded]
  • 5 points: Test and code readability and style [manually graded]

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more
error: Content is protected !!