Fix loops issues

[Treizzer]

Modified while and for loop to fix the infinite loop and negative indices issues, respectively.
What happened before the fix:
Whether you have and array of numbers like -> Integer[] numbers = { 3, 12, 14, 23, 34, 45, 56, 67, 78, 89 };
When you send a value to "Key" greater than the last number in your array, e.g. 90 or greater, the program got into infinite loop and never return the expected "-1" for "key not found".
In case what the for-loop assignment a negative number to the variable "i" the condition will skip the negative index, and the for-loop will continue with the normal flow.

• I have read CONTRIBUTING.md.
• This pull request is all my own work -- I have not plagiarized it.
• All filenames are in PascalCase.
• All functions and variable names follow Java naming conventions.
• All new algorithms have a URL in their comments that points to Wikipedia or other similar explanations.
• All new code is formatted with clang-format -i --style=file path/to/your/file.java

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 60.00000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 73.51%. Comparing base (e63ba4b) to head (3f4ba78).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...in/java/com/thealgorithms/searches/JumpSearch.java	60.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #6086      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     73.50%   73.51%   +0.01%     
- Complexity     5097     5099       +2     
============================================
  Files           657      657              
  Lines         17625    17628       +3     
  Branches       3393     3394       +1     
============================================
+ Hits          12955    12960       +5     
  Misses         4166     4166              
+ Partials        504      502       -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[alxkm]

The Math.min in while (limit < length && key.compareTo(array[Math.min(limit, length - 1)]) > 0) is a bit redundant because you already check limit < length in the while condition.

So it can be simplified to:

while (limit < length && key.compareTo(array[limit]) > 0) {
    limit += blockSize;
}

[alxkm]

Looks like, the condition if (i < 0) continue; is unnecessary. Since limit starts at blockSize, limit - blockSize will always be >= 0.

[alxkm]

What do you think to rewrite below loop to:

int start = Math.max(0, limit - blockSize);
int end = Math.min(limit, length);

// Perform linear search within the identified block
for (int i = start; i < end; i++) {
    if (array[i].equals(key)) {
        return i;
    }
}

[alxkm]

Could you please add your test case, with infinite loop, to com.thealgorithms.searches.JumpSearchTest

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contribution!