It looks even scarier now, with all these zeros :P
Good catch! I fixed it.
Counting in English one, two, three... to 2 Quadrillion (2,000,000,000,000)
What you wrote is 2 Trillion and not 2 Quadrillion
This was my first time implementing random tests in a kata so I used another reputable author's kata as reference to avoid messing things up.
Basically, it will compare the output from the user's solution against the output from the kata author's solution, using the same randomly generated input value. Perhaps someone with more knowledge/experience can provide a better answer.
Thanks you guys! It's nice to have this finished finally!
Just curious about the random tests: if they expect the output of the function, what purpose do they serve? Isn't it like saying expectEqual(1, 1) or am I missing something?
After some more additional tests for consistency, the author's recent updates to the kata appear fine and it's now graduated from beta.
@mimshwright: Though I tested with several additional tests, I added only two extra test cases to the kata. Also, a correction was made to the kata description where one example showed an incorrect result.
@smile67: Unfortunately it appears your solution has been invalidated, but a minor adjustment should make it valid once again.
N.B.: Though I'm in agreement with @smile67 in regards to approving katas that have invalidated a considerable portion of its users' submitted solutions, I've made an exception in this case after reviewing the kata details and running additional tests to check for consistency.
Update: I've added 10 additional random tests for good measure.
So now it's possible to approve the kata, but with only one or two valid solutions it's my personal issue to approve it;-)...
Right. Based on feedback I changed one of the tests so now all the old ones from years ago are invalid. :*(
Attention is not the problem... but all solutions are invalid (and my is not the best:-));-)...
Hmm. just curious, how do I get the attention of a moderator for approval?
I think matt c is probably correct.
I got too frustrated with this conversation and gave up. But I'm back! here's where I settled on the and thing.
Hi remember me? I went back after a couple of years and finalized the code. If you're not happy with the "and" rules, i'm afraid that's too bad :-D
Hopefully this will get things back on track for approval.
I frankly got too frustrated with the "and" argument to finish fixing it to everyone's liking. But I will go back and review.
This is a good exercise that's been in beta for > 2 years. Hopefully it gets more attention to get approved.