For Java I'm pretty sure JUnit 5 allows to put assertion messages into assert methods. With that, you can properly output the assert notes without workarounds or so (consult with JUnit 5 example on docs.
About C++, Snowhouse actually allows to implement assertions as well, although in a more tricky way.
Finally, these messages are crucial for true/false checking, because otherwise you can get obscure output about expected true and actual false without any sign on where was that message invoked or smth :/
Friendship is commutative. (The description doesn't explicitly say this, but I think it's clear from the example given, which has Harry/Ron but not Ron/Harry.)
Can you post the test case (the first few lines of it, at least) that produced the strange behaviour?
I can't pass the first test case. I had a solution that did return a clique (allowing for if X knows Y, then also Y knows X). The test said there shouldn't be any cliques. So then I coded up a non-commutative alogrithm, and then for the same problem the test harness says there should be at least one (!).
A prematurely approved purple kata creates an unfortunate situation. Any chance you can work on the remaining issues, and also the open suggestions below?
@eurydice5717 if you know how to improve them without changing the essence of the task too much, I’m totally fine with that. Honestly, I agree that this kata turned out to have way too many issues. I kept trying to figure out how to solve them, but after 3 years, the best I could do was just close my eyes and pretend it didn’t exist. Then I just stopped liking the whole idea of the kata because I thought I had created something interesting, but it ended up being pretty mediocre. So, I came to terms with the fact that it couldn’t be fixed and wouldn’t pass review. That’s why I was surprised when I saw an email a couple of days ago saying someone had approved it (thank you for that btw)
Thanks! I was interpreting it that way, but I needed confirmation and your formulation is much clearer.
stop advertising.
This comment has been reported as abusive
uff, that´s brilliant, thanks for taking the time to answer the comments.
Very funny kata.
For Java I'm pretty sure JUnit 5 allows to put assertion messages into assert methods. With that, you can properly output the assert notes without workarounds or so (consult with
JUnit 5 example on docs.
About C++, Snowhouse actually allows to implement assertions as well, although in a more tricky way.
Finally, these messages are crucial for true/false checking, because otherwise you can get obscure output about expected true and actual false without any sign on where was that message invoked or smth :/
no answer from OP and no evidence given
Ignoring the
$z$coordinate can give that impression, yeah. You're wrong, author's right. Closing.Approved
Friendship is commutative. (The description doesn't explicitly say this, but I think it's clear from the example given, which has
Harry/Ronbut notRon/Harry.)Can you post the test case (the first few lines of it, at least) that produced the strange behaviour?
I can't pass the first test case. I had a solution that did return a clique (allowing for if X knows Y, then also Y knows X). The test said there shouldn't be any cliques. So then I coded up a non-commutative alogrithm, and then for the same problem the test harness says there should be at least one (!).
A prematurely approved purple kata creates an unfortunate situation. Any chance you can work on the remaining issues, and also the open suggestions below?
@eurydice5717 if you know how to improve them without changing the essence of the task too much, I’m totally fine with that. Honestly, I agree that this kata turned out to have way too many issues. I kept trying to figure out how to solve them, but after 3 years, the best I could do was just close my eyes and pretend it didn’t exist. Then I just stopped liking the whole idea of the kata because I thought I had created something interesting, but it ended up being pretty mediocre. So, I came to terms with the fact that it couldn’t be fixed and wouldn’t pass review. That’s why I was surprised when I saw an email a couple of days ago saying someone had approved it (thank you for that btw)
Edit: Comment removed
python new test framework
Loading more items...