6 kyu
Task master
127 of 166potzko
Loading description...
Threads
This comment has been reported as {{ abuseKindText }}.
Show
This comment has been hidden. You can view it now .
This comment can not be viewed.
- |
- Reply
- Edit
- View Solution
- Expand 1 Reply Expand {{ comments?.length }} replies
- Collapse
- Spoiler
- Remove
- Remove comment & replies
- Report
{{ fetchSolutionsError }}
-
-
Your rendered github-flavored markdown will appear here.
-
Label this discussion...
-
No Label
Keep the comment unlabeled if none of the below applies.
-
Issue
Use the issue label when reporting problems with the kata.
Be sure to explain the problem clearly and include the steps to reproduce. -
Suggestion
Use the suggestion label if you have feedback on how this kata can be improved.
-
Question
Use the question label if you have questions and/or need help solving the kata.
Don't forget to mention the language you're using, and mark as having spoiler if you include your solution.
-
No Label
- Cancel
Commenting is not allowed on this discussion
You cannot view this solution
There is no solution to show
Please sign in or sign up to leave a comment.
C translation
Java translation, please review.
approved
Current stats of kata:
This comment has been hidden.
Hi,
The user's solution should be imported explicitely in the tests
Cheers
oh.... 'x)
Just put it at the top, with all other imports... (after the critical line. You should add a note about that, btw)
This comment has been hidden.
This comment has been hidden.
solved
This comment has been hidden.
has this issue been addressed yet, or is this kata approvable?
this issue was fixed
This comment has been hidden.
This comment has been hidden.
the setup for all tests are basicly the same I just give an array of functions that take some amount of time to pass the error is mentioning which I do not use in the kata testers, and so im unsure what is causing the error
This comment has been hidden.
Is this something that can be solved by avoiding nested functions in my testing code, or is this only solvable by modifying the user's code? I am not very familiar with the specifics of Linux/Windows multiprocessing.
I would say, this is not an issue. Nothing in particular should be done. Especially considering, that multiprocessing is not a right way to solve the kata.
I see, thank you
This does not address the issue. The point is, there is a language-specific technical difference in how the random test cases are generated that creates visible differences (making some solution fail) between the sample tests/fixed tests and the random tests.
When we do katas, the best we can infer to are the description and the sample tests (we're not supposed to bang our head on random tests). If there are differences between what we can observe and what is actually being tested, how can we be sure we aren't writing solutions that's wasting our time? There have been kata author who had the audacity to pull a "oopsies you got pranked bro" move and create test cases that are very different that the sample tests, structurally or conceptually, and they unanimously believe they're very smart by doing this.
Please don't be these kata authors. We have to defend ourselves against hostile kata authors too. Thank you for the understanding.
I changed the example test cases to more accurately represent the hidden tests
This comment has been hidden.
im not sure as to why you are timing out, when I ran your code it worked every time in about 7 seconds as it should. mind sending me more details? are you timing out in the sample tests? is it consistant?
You need to uncomment some code in there
This comment has been hidden.
You are right, I should not have put that function call in the mutex.