done

it is, but 0 can be counted as False

aaa.... right.... how on earth did I not notice that formal is s'posed to be a bool/

ok, well i can just be a bit lazier.
exec(__import__("marshal").loads(__import__("codecs").decode("63000000000000000000000000000000000200000040000000730c00000065006400830101006401530029027a476f72206a757374206265206c617a69657220616e6420637265617465206d79206f776e2070726f6772616d207468617420646f65732062797465636f646528696d206c617a79294e2901da057072696e74a90072010000007201000000fa083c737472696e673eda083c6d6f64756c653e0100000073020000000c01","hex")))

p.s. this is for logging to console

sth i made on my own (i dont think ill reveal it? if youre interested u can read up here and try to implement one yourself, or perform it by hand)

what program

the goal is to make it short, not make it long

I did NOT improve from @thatbirdguythatuknownot's answer, I modified the test cases. So its still 96 characters.

I did NOT improve from @thatbirdguythatuknownot's answer, I modified the test cases.

nice

thats so much shorter

nice! I see that big improvement!

Updated:

# ORDER TYPE COUPONS
f'10% off order' : lambda x: x // 10,
f'10$ off 20$ or larger order' : lambda x: 1000 if x >= 2000 else 0,

# Reward points is a special order type coupon that gives $1 discount per 1000 points.
f'Reward points: {0 <= n <= 100000}' : lambda x: 100 * x // 1000

order type coupons should each be processed exactly once if they exist.

Let me know if that's a clear enough description for the rewards coupons.

It matters from the standpoint of de-duplicating coupons: de-duplicating by the entire coupon name rather than reward coupons will fail tests where multiple reward coupons of different values exist. This isn't ruled out by the description, so there are no reasons to arbitrarily remove some of the possible inputs.

I see your point now. My appologies for not understanding.

If you recieve two or more rewards coupons, while, yes they all have the same number currently, it doesn't matter

It matters from the standpoint of de-duplicating coupons: de-duplicating by the entire coupon name rather than reward coupons will fail tests where multiple reward coupons of different values exist.

This isn't ruled out by the description, so there are no reasons to arbitrarily remove some of the possible inputs. Lack of test coverage (testing the possible kind of scenarios fully) is a serious testing issue: you can't just say "I don't need to test it because the rules explained this pretty clearly". Code doesn't care about your description; it only cares about your tests.

Speaking of which, where are the explanations of reward points coupons? It used to be in the description but now it's gone, so the meaning of it is unclear.

I have changed tests to use strict equals.