Ad
  • Custom User Avatar

    Amazing Kata, thanks for a something closely related to the real world problems.

  • Custom User Avatar

    Thank you for your kind compliment. I try.

  • Default User Avatar

    This is really great @ALowVerus, thanks for leaving all your work and comments - I wish more people did it as it's a useful learning resource!

  • Custom User Avatar

    thanks <3

    also nice job my guy :-D

  • Custom User Avatar

    Alright, so I has been solving this kata for the huge amount of time, and all this time I had the error when I misunderstood one of the imporant aspects lol. Because of that, I spent about... 3 months on this kata, even though I was really close to the right answer? But still, I had a university study, and that error was completely on my side :s

    Apart of that, this kata is really good, I wish the issues with it would be cleared soon and it would get out of Beta :D

  • Default User Avatar

    All the coins have to meet on the same vertex, not just two of them. u1 and u2 can stay together since they start on the same vertex but they need to meet up with u3.

  • Custom User Avatar

    i cant understand what should i do if there are 2 coins in the same spot

    like---->>
    g = {0: {1, 2}, 1: {0, 4}, 2: {0}, 3: {3}, 4: {1, 4}, 5: set()}
    u1 = 2
    u2 = 2
    u3 = 0
    should 3
    why not None
    how....!!

  • Custom User Avatar
    • Fixed up description.
    • Correct re: overlap. If I get a string ATCGAAAT, that means that the repeated string would be ATCGAAATATCGAAAT, not ATCGAAATCGAAAT. If there is an AT at the front and end, that is because it is repeated.
    • Re: Test cases: Fine, I added 3 more. I'm not going to get torn up over missing test cases, the code in the actual test cases is pretty comprehensive, and has useful debug messages. Also, some of the code for checking error_prone tests is revealing of how to deal with error_prone cases IMHO, so it shouldn't be shown.
  • Custom User Avatar

    Hi,

    • error_prone is False, is_comprehensive is False.: how the user is supposed to know that is_comrehensive is false or true, since it's not an argument of the function, according to the solution setup? By scanning the description yet another time, I realized that's just an info given to the user about the tests content. In that case, would be better to not show that info formatted in the same way than error_prone => no snake case thing, just text.
    • your description is mostly written backward... x/
      1. context ("you are a biologist..." until the end. Note that this part might lead the user to think all reads are of length 3 while it's not the case)
      2. CLEAR inputs description
      3. special cases description (the error prone thing is totally opaque to me, by just reading to the description)
      4. tests constraints at last.
    • about the error prone thing, you show what the error is (sort of), but you don't explain how it impacts the reaosnning considering the problem to solve
    • the unique sample tests is too much of a toy => need more cases, unless impossible to provide
    • would be good to clarify how the overlapping head/tail of the string is affecting the length of the result. From what I've read so far, I assume the length of the output string is the number to match, meaning the overlap isn't subtracted. Right? (=> ACGTATGACGT is length 11 and not just 7)

    cheers

  • Custom User Avatar
  • Default User Avatar

    to me since no issues are opne, I'll approve it as 2 kyu if author thinks its fine in a couple of days (should no new issues be opened)

  • Custom User Avatar
  • Custom User Avatar
  • Custom User Avatar

    Reraising issue from below:

    • Should use latest testing framework
    • Full tests produce far too much output (fills up the buffer) for incorrect solutions
  • Custom User Avatar

    Here you go

    better to have slow tests that describe your failure than fast tests that tell you nothing

    This is exactly my point though. Why not provide a few more sample tests that are more complex than the current sample tests? Then users can get tests that describe the failure, without requiring the webpage to freeze for 45 seconds every time? Just saying "if your solution is correct then it works" does not mean there is no problem. (Is there really such a need to run over 5000 tests and to output results for each one?)

    Also please do not close issues without resolving anything.

  • Loading more items...