Kata

I mean, those are not meant to be intersections, obviously. I don't think this is really an issue.

The text is actually correct, so the issue is a different one: the description should have this as an example.

I have checked with my 3 implementations, and they all say there should be 11 squares.

So, it's 11. :)

For those trying to solve it as well, the function signature is:

fn count_squares(lines: &[&str]) -> u64 {}

I also deleted the sample test cases.

Is the issue truly resolved? I'm still getting the same solution setup as in the original post even when I hit the reset button.

Sorry, some places I wrote 1x1 which is 2x2 square.

Here:

+----+ +++    => Square 1x1 [starting from 3rd]
     +-++|
       +-+

There are two squares here, not only one: a 2x2 and a 3x3. They both share the upper left corner. The 3x3 square is this one:

+++
+ |
+-+

(center + removed).

thanks, for the correction.

my query is that the above figure has more squares than just "3" [3 is the Expected answer]!! what is wrong in my understanding!!

I see. I've fed the picture into my own solution (which is also used in the random checks as reference) as well as into another C++ solution sent by another user. Both return 11. That is, the expected answer should definitely be 11 for your input, not 3.

What's a bit odd about your input are the first few lines:

+----+
|    |
++---+
 |   |
 |   |
++-+ |      // first and last + don't match any rectangle
 |+-++++    // this line and the two below seem to be messed up
 |  |+-+
 +--+

The generator shouldn't be able to generate broken shapes like this. It generates coordinates for random rectangles and squares within given constraints, and stores these coordinates in a vector. In a second step, the shapes are drawn into an array of strings, preallocated so that writing beyond any boundaries is impossible. In the last step, any trailing spaces are removed from all strings, leading and trailing empty lines are discarded from the final picture.

Are you sure that your dump is accurate? Do we see multiple overlapping pictures here? Any chance there could be any "junk" left between invocations of your function?

thanks for the update.

Yes, the figure might not be exactly accurate, since I had manually copied it for explaining my understanding, so that might have created the issue.

Segfault.

As already suggested by FArekkusu, exit code 139 should correspond to signal 11 (SIGSEGV).

You can try sprinkling std::cout over your code to help you tracking down the line where your program crashes (assuming it is your program that is crashing the tests). Your program may access memory beyond the end of some line.

Yes, thank you guys. It was due to memory mismanagement.

Hope, I will be able to solve the last few "figures" left to submit!!

Thank you for reporting, I have fixed the tests (see my other reply for some details). Please try again, it should work now.

Thank you for your reply! Yes, the tests work perfectly now. I'm still failing a couple of them so just need to fix my code, haha :p

Thank you for reporting this. The tests picked up two functions defined only in my own solution, but not in the tests themselves. Running the tests against my own solution worked, so that's why the problem wasn't detected by the built-in validation. I'll know better next time. :)

It should work now, please try again.

It works fin now. Thanks.

Thank you for your feedback! I think I could add random tests (see below). Out of curiosity: did you find any concrete corner cases that are not addressed by the existing tests?

For the random tests, I am thinking about two different kinds of picture generators: one which generates instances with only non-touching rectangles/squares, and another one which generates completely random instances. The restricted generator will be harder to implement, but the expected results will be trivial to check. The unrestricted generator will be easier to implement, but I will have to use and trust my own (or another) solution as reference to figure out the expected result.

edge cases: nope, that seems a good case coverage already. Maybe just add this one:

   +--+  +--+
   |  |  |  |
   |  |  |  |
+--+--+--+--+
|  |  |  |
|  |  |  |
+--+--+--+--+
   |  |  |  |
   |  |  |  |
+--+--+--+--+
|  |  |  |
|  |  |  |
+--+  +--+

to have something complementary of your pattern 2 of five squares test.

About the random tests, I believe I'd try something like having default full grids of different sizes like:

+-+-+-+-+...
| | | | |...
+-+-+-+-+...
| | | | |...
+-+-+-+-+...
| | | | |...
+-+-+-+-+...
...

then pick a random number of corners to delete, then clean up the global structure.

Using different densities of the default grid and different shapes and sizes, you should be able to generate almost any kind of case. tho the variability of the generated grids needs to be high, so the parameters used would need some fine tunning.