Enhance "wc" command

[ajsdkty3]

Description: This pull request enhances the wc command by adding new features to count punctuation, digits, and uppercase/lowercase letters in a file.

Features:

Character Type Counting: Alongside the standard counts (lines, words, characters), this enhancement introduces the ability to count:
Punctuation marks (e.g., ., ,, !, ?).
Digits (0-9).
Uppercase letters (A-Z).
Lowercase letters (a-z).

Options:
-p: Count punctuation marks.
-d: Count digits.
-u: Count uppercase letters.
-l: Count lowercase letters.
Testing: test_count.c is added to test wc on count_sample.txt

[geoweb999]

I'd be happy to code review

[geoweb999]

The original issue opened for enhancing wc proposes to enhance wc to include flags:
-l: Count lines.
-w: Count words.
-c: Count characters.
-p: Count punctuation marks.
-d: Count digits.
-u: Count uppercase letters.
-L: Count lowercase letters.

This implementation is missing -c, -L and -w flags. In addition, the -l flag now counts lower-case letters and not lines where lines is a very common use case so losing that functionality is an issue. I would also suggest adding a -h flag to print some simple help explaining what each flag does:

$ wc -h
wc -- print word count 
usage: wc [-l] [-w] [-c] [-p] [-d] [-u] [-L] [-h]
-l: Count lines.
-w: Count words.
-c: Count characters.
-p: Count punctuation marks.
-d: Count digits.
-u: Count uppercase letters.
-L: Count lowercase letters.
-h: print this helpful information

Adding a test-count program is a really nice touch. It might be helpful if the test program indicated how many tests passed and how many failed but otherwise it's great.

I did some manually testing and there's an edge case if you try to run wc on a directory:

$ mkdir foo
$ wc foo
0 1 32 foo
$ wc -p foo
Punctuation: 3

However, this is how wc works originally so I don't know if it's important to fix. Calling fstat to determine file type (T_DIR) would allow you to exclude directories.

A second issue is that pipes no longer work. Here's how the original FogOS looks:

$ cat README.md | wc
4 3 35 

And with the current version of wc:

$ cat README.md | wc
$ 

I think this line might be an issue: if (!flags_specified && name[0] != '\0') {

The code looks great, it's easy to understand what you are doing and the javadoc style comment is really excellent. I really liked how you cleaned up the bad formatting in the old version of wc, it's much easier to read now.

High Level Checks:

• PR fully resolves the task/issue
• Does the PR have tests?
• Does the PR follow project code formatting standards?
• Does the OS still compile and run?
• Is documentation included?

Code Checks:

• Does the code achieve its intended purpose?
• Were all edge cases considered?
• Is the code organized and maintainable?
• Does the code maintain the same level of performance? (no performance regressions)

[riyamathur1]

I can code review this

[riyamathur1]

Code review: Enhance wc command
This project is well implemented, easy to understand and test, and achieves the intended purpose.

Flags:
-p (Count Punctuation): Correctly counts punctuation marks, including periods, symbols, commas, exclamation points, etc.
-d (Count Digits): The digit count is accurate and handles all numeric characters from 0-9
-u (Count Uppercase Letters): Accurately counts all uppercase letters
-l (Count Lowercase Letters): Accurately counts all lowercase letters

Code Style:
The code is clean, consistent, and easy to understand. The javadoc comments for the wc function were helpful.

Edge Cases:
Multiple flags can be used simultaneously.
Good error handling for invalid flags.
Correct output for cases with no punctuation/digits/uppercase and lowercase letters.

Testing:
The test file test_count.c was very helpful and included a variety of test cases. count_sample.txt included punctuation, digits, and uppercase/lowercase letters.

High Level Checks:

• [✔️] PR fully resolves the task/issue
• [✔️] Does the PR have tests?
• [✔️] Does the PR follow project code formatting standards?
• [✔️] Does the OS still compile and run?
• [✔️] Is documentation included?

Code Checks:

• [✔️] Does the code achieve its intended purpose?
• [✔️] Were all edge cases considered?
• [✔️] Is the code organized and maintainable?
• [✔️] Does the code maintain the same level of performance? (no performance regressions)

[malensek]

It looks like the main functionality got added to this, but several regressions have happened as well. I immediately noticed I could no longer pipe data into wc, -l now means something different, there is no help message, etc. There is certainly a disconnect between the features outlined in the issue and this PR. However, including a test program is great!

If you fix the pipe issue, directory check, add help message, and update the flags to reflect the features you implemented you can earn +1 to your project.