1. Assignment guidance 
You will produce, in C, a program which fits the following specification: 
Maze Game 
Usage: ./maze <mazefile path> 
You are creating a basic game, where players navigate through a maze. 
The maze will be loaded from a file, the filename for which is passed as a command line argument. Mazes are made up of four characters: 
Character     Purpose 
‘#’     A wall which the player cannot move across 
‘ ‘ (a space)     A path which the player can move across 
‘S’     The place where the player starts the maze 
‘E’     The place where the player exits the maze 
  
A maze has a height and a width, with a maximum of 100 and a minimum of 5. 
The height and width do not have to be equal – as long as both are within the accepted range. 
Within a maze, each ‘row’ and ‘column’ should be the same length – the maze should be a rectangle. 
When the game loads, the player will start at the starting point ‘S’ and can move through the maze using WASD movement: 
Key     Direction 
W/w     Up 
A/a     Left 
S/s     Down 
D/d     Right 
Note: Each input will be separated with a newline character – this is not keypress triggered. 
The player can move freely through path spaces (‘ ‘) but cannot move through walls or off the edge of the map. Some helpful prompt should be provided if this is attempted. 
The map should not be shown to the player every time they make a move, but they can enter ‘M’/’m’ to view an image of the map, with their current location shown by an ‘X’. 
When the user reaches the exit point ‘E’, the game is over and will close. The player should be given some message stating that they have won. There is no ‘lose’ condition. 
 
Mazefile specification A valid maze: 
-Has a single starting point ‘S’ 
-Has a single exit point ‘E’  
-Contains only the start and exit characters, spaces (‘ ‘), walls (‘#’) and newline (‘ ’) characters 
-Has every row the same length 
-Has every column the same height 
-Has a maximum width and height of 100 
-Has a minimum width and height of 5 
-Does not require every row and column to start or end with a ‘#’ 
-May have a trailing newline at the end of the file (one empty row containing only ‘ ’) 
A selection of valid mazes are provided in your starting repository – you should ensure that your code accepts all of these mazes. 
Note that file extension is not important – there is no requirement for a mazefile to be stored as a .txt file provided that the contents of the file are valid.  
 
      
Standard Outputs 
To allow some automatic testing of your functionality, we require some of your outputs to have a specific format. To prevent you from being overly restricted, this will only be the final returned value of your code rather than any print statements. 
Return Codes 
Scenario     Value to be returned by your executable 
Successful running     0 
Argument error     1 
File error     2 
Invalid maze     3 
Any other non-successful exit 
Note: it is unlikely that you will need to use this code     100 
 
 Maze Printing Function 
The maze printing function (‘M’/’m’) must output the maze in the following way: 
-No additional spaces added 
-Newline before the first row is printed 
-Newline after the final row 
-If the player’s current position overlaps with the starting point, this should display ‘X’ rather than ‘S’ 
 
The code required to do this is provided in the template as print_maze() and may be used without referencing me. 
 
      
Additional Challenge Task – Maze Generator 
This is an optional additional task which will involve researching and developing a more complex piece of code – you do not need to complete this section to achieve a good grade. 
This task may take longer than the recommended time given above – I recommend only attempting any part of it if you found the original task trivial to complete. 
 
In addition to allowing users to solve mazes, you will create an additional program `mazegen` which allows users to generate a valid and solvable maze with the specified width and height, to be saved in ‘filename’. 
For example: 
./mazeGen maze4.txt 20 45 
Will save a maze which is 20 x 45 into ‘maze4.txt’, creating that file if it does not already exist. 
Valid maze means that it fits the rules given above, as well as being solvable (there is at least one solution to the maze- it is possible to start at S and exit at E). 
There are some existing algorithms which can create mazes, and you should experiment with using these to produce ‘quality’ mazes which are not trivial to solve, and present some challenge to the player. You should document your process of developing the maze creation algorithm, as this will form a part of the assessment. 
It is recommended that you keep a log including some maze files generated by each iteration, what you intend to change for the next iteration based on these maze files, and just some general comments about what you think was good or bad about this particular solution. 
Some things to consider for each iteration are: 
-Did the program produce a variety of designs of maze? 
-Did the program produce only valid mazes? 
-How did the program perform with larger dimensions (100 x 100 for example) -     What did the program do particularly well? o Can you identify what part of the code caused this? -     What did the program do particularly poorly? 
o Can you identify what part of the code caused this? -     What will you try next time? 
For this task, you will present your maze generation program to a member of the module team (either in person or through video) and discuss: 
-How your program works 
-How you iteratively developed it 
-The limitations of your solution 
-Any improvements you would like to make to it in future 
A list of questions will be provided 1 week before presentations/videos are to be completed. 
      
2. Assessment tasks 
Produce the C code for a program which solves the tasks detailed above. 
You should ensure that your code is: 
-Structured sensibly 
-Modular 
-Well-documented 
-Defensive 
-Working as intended 
You can use the code skeleton you produced in Assignment 1, or a basic skeleton is provided via GitHub Classrooms. 
You can use any number of additional header and C files, and a basic makefile has been provided in the original repository to allow compilation – you may edit or replace this if preferred. 
You may not use any non-standard C libraries except from unit testing libraries. 
You should also use your test script and data from assignment 1 to help you to produce defensive and robust code which fits the specification. 
 
If you did not create a test script, or your test script does not work, then you can manually test your code. 
As the test script is not assessed for this work, you may also share your test script with others although you must not share any of your c code.  
 
Extension Task 
Produce a program able to procedurally generate valid, solvable mazes.      
3.General guidance and study support 
You should refer to the previous lab exercises and lecture notes to support you. The resources from COMP1711 Procedural Programming may also be useful as these cover the majority of the programming content needed. 
 
4.Assessment criteria and marking process 
A full breakdown of the assessment criteria can be found in section 8. 
Your code will be tested with a number of different maze files and user inputs containing errors- the exact nature of these errors will not be told to you before marking, so ensure that you validate a wide range of potential user errors. You should use the testscript which you developed for Assignment 1 to check your code. 
Your code will be manually checked for code quality. 
If you complete the additional challenge task, you will submit your code for plagiarism checking but will present your code to a member of module staff for assessment. 
 
 
      

5. Presentation and referencing 
If you need to reference any resources use a simple comment, for example: 
// This test is adapted from an example provided on: https://byby.dev/bash-exit-codes You should not be directly copying any code from external resources, even with a reference. 
If you are referencing a Generative AI model, you must provide the full conversation. 
In ChatGPT, you can generate a link to the full conversation: 

// Lines 1 – 7 were adapted from code provided by the following conversation with chatGPT: https://chat.openai.com/share/c356221d-fb88-4970-b39e-d00c87ae1e0b 
 
In Copilot, you will need to export the conversation as a text file: 

Save this with a filename including the date and 2-3 word summary of what the conversation was about (’11-03 inputs in C.txt’) and ensure this is submitted with your work. 
You can reference this in your code: 
// Lines 1 – 7 were adapted from code provided by the CoPilot conversation recorded in ’11-03 inputs in C.txt’ 
 
If you are using a different Generative AI model, these instructions may differ – you must still provide a link to or copy of the full conversation and reference in the same manner above. 
 
Use of Generative AI in this Assessment 
This assessment is rated ‘amber’ according to the university guidelines around generative AI. This means that you can use genAI models such as ChatGPT or CoPilot to explain concepts which may be useful in this assessment, but you must not ask it to write your code for you nor give it any part of my specification.  
The following link is an example of what I would consider ‘reasonable use’ of chatGPT for this assessment: 
https://chat.openai.com/share/c356221d-fb88-4970-b39e-d00c87ae1e0b 
 
      

Submission requirements 
Submit your source code via Gradescope. There is a separate submission point for the extension work. 
Ensure that: 
-Any .c or .h files are not inside a subdirectory 
-The makefile is not inside a subdirectory 
-Your executables are named: maze and mazegen 
-You have followed the return code instructions above 
-Your code compiles on Linux 
You will receive some instant feedback which should confirm that your upload is in the correct format and is using the correct return values – please ensure you correct any failing tests. 
Note: passing these tests is not a guarantee that your code will gain full marks from the autograder – just that it is the correct format/returns for the grader to run. 
      

Academic misconduct and plagiarism 
Leeds students are part of an academic community that shares ideas and develops new ones.   
  
You need to learn how to work with others, how to interpret and present other people's ideas, and how to produce your own independent academic work. It is essential that you can distinguish between other people's work and your own, and correctly acknowledge other people's work.   
  
All students new to the University are expected to complete an online Academic Integrity tutorial and test, and all Leeds students should ensure that they are aware of the principles of Academic integrity.   
  
When you submit work for assessment it is expected that it will meet the University’s academic integrity standards.   
  
If you do not understand what these standards are, or how they apply to your work, then please ask the module teaching staff for further guidance.  
  
By submitting this assignment, you are confirming that the work is a true expression of your own work and ideas and that you have given credit to others where their work has contributed to yours.  
 
      

Assessment/ marking criteria grid 
 
Category     1st     2:1 / 2:2     Pass / 3rd     Fail 
Code (70)     
Auto-graded Questions     
Functionality 
(30)     Fully functional, meeting all specified requirements.     Mostly functional but with minor bugs or incomplete features.     Core functionality has been implemented with some major errors.     Significant errors, or does not meet specification. 
Defensive 
Design 
(10)     Robust error handling and defensive programming practices implemented.     Adequate error handling but lacks coverage for certain edge cases.     Error handling for a variety of cases has been implemented. Code does not regularly crash.     Lack of defensive programming; code is prone to errors or crashes. 
Manually Marked Questions     
Code Structure 
(10)     Well-organized structure that 
enhances 
readability and comprehension.     Clear structure but lacks some cohesion affecting readability.     Structure exists but causes confusion or detracts from readability.     Lack of coherent structure, code is hard to follow. 
Documentation (Comments / readme) 
(10)     Thorough documentation, including explanations of code logic and usage.     Adequate documentation, but some parts lack clarity or completeness.     Limited documentation, 
making it difficult to understand code intentions.     Absence of documentation which makes code unreadable. 
Modular breakdown 
(5)     Clearly defined modules with distinct functionalities, promoting easy maintenance.     Modules mostly defined but may lack clear separation or functionality.     Poor division into modules, leading to confusion or inefficiencies.     Lack of modular design; code is monolithic and hard to manage. 
Memory 
Management 
(5)     Optimal memory 
handling; efficient allocation and deallocation with no leaks.     Mostly efficient memory handling but may have minor leaks or inefficiencies.     Inefficient memory handling causing noticeable leaks or performance issues.     Severe memory leaks or grossly inefficient memory usage. 
      

Maze Generator (30) 
Functionality 
(10)     Generates highquality, challenging mazes meeting all criteria.     Mostly generates challenging mazes but may have some limitations.     Generates mazes 
with significant limitations or are too simplistic.     Fails to generate valid or challenging mazes. 
Algorithm 
Development 
(20)     It is clear how the final algorithm was reached, with a clear progression from more simple algorithms to a final algorithm. Student able to articulate this development with reflective language and clear justifications for choices made. Student able to articulate the limitations of the solution and any further work which could improve it.     There is a clear progression of algorithm design, from a simpler algorithm to a more complex final algorithm which builds on the previous solutions. Student can 
articulate this development but may be lacking in reflective thinking or clear justifications. 
Student has made some attempt to 
articulate limitations and further work.     Some evidence of progression to a 
final solution, thought student may struggle to 
explain justify choices made and lack reflection. Student can explain basic, surface level limitations.     No evidence of any progression to the solution, or student unable to explain how the algorithm was developed. 
 请加QQ：99515681  邮箱：99515681@qq.com   WX：codinghelp