Task: Add NarrowPhase.elm tests about elm-physics HOT 3 CLOSED

We should probably do something like this going forward to keep NarrowPhase.elm from growing on the order of n^2 as we add shapes. I don't know that it's worth applying this convention retroactively to existing shapes. It would make the most sense to have a separate ShapeAShapeB module when the implementation depended on lots of implementation details of both shapes. When ShapeA is relatively simple like a Plane or even a Sphere I don't see a great deal of harm in the current approach of keeping the collision code in NarrowPhase.elm or in ShapeB.elm.

from elm-physics.

There's enough testing now to have confidence that the benchmark results will be valid.

from elm-physics.

@paulmartel what do you think of creating the NarrowPhase subfolder and moving all ShapeAShapeB.elm collision functions there?

from elm-physics.