adding a geometry module

[meg-1]

Describe your change:

implementing suggestion: [specifics] (#8778 (comment)) which was brought up in #8778

This is a geometry module dedicated to working with different geometrical structures and shapes in a strucutred manner.

The main interfaces are:

1. Shape - an interface which represents all possible geometrical shapes
2. Shape Types (submodule) - Interfaces for different types of shapes
3. Geometrical Primitives - Utility Data Structures for working with shapes

Feel free to extend this module.

• Add an algorithm?
• Fix a bug or typo in an existing algorithm?
• Add or change doctests? -- Note: Please avoid changing both code and tests in a single pull request.
• Documentation change?

Checklist:

• I have read CONTRIBUTING.md.
• This pull request is all my own work -- I have not plagiarized.
• I know that pull requests will not be merged if they fail the automated tests.
• This PR only changes one algorithm file. To ease review, please open separate PRs for separate algorithms.
• All new Python files are placed inside an existing directory.
• All filenames are in all lowercase characters with no spaces or dashes.
• All functions and variable names follow Python naming conventions.
• All function parameters and return values are annotated with Python type hints.
• All functions have doctests that pass the automated testing.
• All new algorithms include at least one URL that points to Wikipedia or another similar explanation.
• If this pull request resolves one or more open issues then the description above includes the issue number(s) with a closing keyword: "Fixes #ISSUE-NUMBER".

[cclauss]

A lot of these errors could be automatically fixed with:

python3 -m pip install ruff
ruff --select=I,TID --fix geometry

[algorithms-keeper]

Click here to look at the relevant links ⬇️

🔗 Relevant Links

Repository:

• Contributing guidelines
• Project Euler solution guidelines

Python:

• Formatted string literals (f-strings)
• Type hints
• doctest
• unittest
• pytest

Automated review generated by algorithms-keeper. If there's any problem regarding this review, please open an issue about it.

---

algorithms-keeper commands and options

algorithms-keeper actions can be triggered by commenting on this PR:

• @algorithms-keeper review to trigger the checks for only added pull request files
• @algorithms-keeper review-all to trigger the checks for all the pull request files, including the modified files. As we cannot post review comments on lines not part of the diff, this command will post all the messages in one comment.

NOTE: Commands are in beta and so this feature is restricted only to a member or owner of the organization.

[cclauss]

OK... I created a new file that contains a bunch of feedback on how to structure things and how to create doctests. The current pull request contains tons of files which makes it difficult to review but there is great stuff here. Rectangles need four Sides, not two. Using dataclasses makes building doctests easier.

[meg-1]

OK... I created a new file that contains a bunch of feedback on how to structure things and how to create doctests. The current pull request contains tons of files which makes it difficult to review but there is great stuff here. Rectangles need four Sides, not two. Using dataclasses makes building doctests easier.

@cclauss , Thank you incredibly for the thorough code review, it is grately appreciated! I have a few clarifying questions, just to check whether I understood everything correctly, if you don't mind, to not waste more of your time in the future:

1. Should we keep all of the code in one file, just as the code review showed, or was the code placed in one file simply for a more efficient code review, and the original structure is fine?

2. Do you think it would be a good idea to move all of the primitives (Angle, Side) to a file (f.e. 'primities.py'), and Shapes into a different file (f.e. 'shapes.py'), as a more structured approach (leave files such as open_shape, closed_shape, e.t.c.)?

3. Based on 'The Algorithms' structure, and the mission of the repo, would it be better to leave the structure as it is right now, complicated yet easy to add onto in the future (f.e. adding a new class to the structure), if anyone wishes, or to simplify it by modifying the existing code directly (f.e. adding a new method to an existing class), yet making it harder to add onto in the future?

[algorithms-keeper]

Click here to look at the relevant links ⬇️

🔗 Relevant Links

Repository:

• Contributing guidelines
• Project Euler solution guidelines

Python:

• Formatted string literals (f-strings)
• Type hints
• doctest
• unittest
• pytest

Automated review generated by algorithms-keeper. If there's any problem regarding this review, please open an issue about it.

---

algorithms-keeper commands and options

algorithms-keeper actions can be triggered by commenting on this PR:

• @algorithms-keeper review to trigger the checks for only added pull request files
• @algorithms-keeper review-all to trigger the checks for all the pull request files, including the modified files. As we cannot post review comments on lines not part of the diff, this command will post all the messages in one comment.

NOTE: Commands are in beta and so this feature is restricted only to a member or owner of the organization.

[algorithms-keeper]

Click here to look at the relevant links ⬇️

🔗 Relevant Links

Repository:

• Contributing guidelines
• Project Euler solution guidelines

Python:

• Formatted string literals (f-strings)
• Type hints
• doctest
• unittest
• pytest

Automated review generated by algorithms-keeper. If there's any problem regarding this review, please open an issue about it.

---

algorithms-keeper commands and options

algorithms-keeper actions can be triggered by commenting on this PR:

• @algorithms-keeper review to trigger the checks for only added pull request files
• @algorithms-keeper review-all to trigger the checks for all the pull request files, including the modified files. As we cannot post review comments on lines not part of the diff, this command will post all the messages in one comment.

NOTE: Commands are in beta and so this feature is restricted only to a member or owner of the organization.

[algorithms-keeper]

Click here to look at the relevant links ⬇️

🔗 Relevant Links

Repository:

• Contributing guidelines
• Project Euler solution guidelines

Python:

• Formatted string literals (f-strings)
• Type hints
• doctest
• unittest
• pytest

Automated review generated by algorithms-keeper. If there's any problem regarding this review, please open an issue about it.

---

algorithms-keeper commands and options

algorithms-keeper actions can be triggered by commenting on this PR:

• @algorithms-keeper review to trigger the checks for only added pull request files
• @algorithms-keeper review-all to trigger the checks for all the pull request files, including the modified files. As we cannot post review comments on lines not part of the diff, this command will post all the messages in one comment.

NOTE: Commands are in beta and so this feature is restricted only to a member or owner of the organization.

[cclauss]

codespell................................................................Failed
- hook id: codespell
- exit code: 65

geometry/geometry.py:43: lightyears ==> light years
geometry/code_review_feedback.py:43: lightyears ==> light years

Hint: This should not be light years anyway. Put something better instead.

[algorithms-keeper]

Click here to look at the relevant links ⬇️

🔗 Relevant Links

Repository:

• Contributing guidelines
• Project Euler solution guidelines

Python:

• Formatted string literals (f-strings)
• Type hints
• doctest
• unittest
• pytest

Automated review generated by algorithms-keeper. If there's any problem regarding this review, please open an issue about it.

---

algorithms-keeper commands and options

algorithms-keeper actions can be triggered by commenting on this PR:

• @algorithms-keeper review to trigger the checks for only added pull request files
• @algorithms-keeper review-all to trigger the checks for all the pull request files, including the modified files. As we cannot post review comments on lines not part of the diff, this command will post all the messages in one comment.

NOTE: Commands are in beta and so this feature is restricted only to a member or owner of the organization.

[algorithms-keeper]

Click here to look at the relevant links ⬇️

🔗 Relevant Links

Repository:

• Contributing guidelines
• Project Euler solution guidelines

Python:

• Formatted string literals (f-strings)
• Type hints
• doctest
• unittest
• pytest

Automated review generated by algorithms-keeper. If there's any problem regarding this review, please open an issue about it.

---

algorithms-keeper commands and options

algorithms-keeper actions can be triggered by commenting on this PR:

• @algorithms-keeper review to trigger the checks for only added pull request files
• @algorithms-keeper review-all to trigger the checks for all the pull request files, including the modified files. As we cannot post review comments on lines not part of the diff, this command will post all the messages in one comment.

NOTE: Commands are in beta and so this feature is restricted only to a member or owner of the organization.

[cclauss]

Thanks for doing this. Sorry that it took so long to land.

In a future pull request(s) could be broken into the following files.

• angle.py
• side.py
• ellipse.py includes Ellipse and Circle (Perhaps Oval should be the base class ;-) )
• polygon.py includes Rectangle, Square, (future...) Trapezoid, Triangle, Pentagon, Hexigon, Octogon, etc...

---

• Circle has optimized calculations for area but Square does not yet have such optimizations.
• Rectangle has two sides, not four!