7 kyu
Working with Dictionaries
271 of 372raulbc777
Loading description...
Fundamentals
Algorithms
Data Structures
View
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.
Still :
Please, what language?
Python:
Ruby 3.0 should be enabled
JS Node 14. should be enabled
Parameter name should be
camelCase
4 years ago, Caders raised an issue in the Python version. The tests use
randint(900, 1007)
which chooses a random integer from 900 to 1007 inclusive. This is a problem, because the supplied A001055 dict only goes up to 1006. cliffstamp marked it resolved, saying it appeared to be fixed in Ruby. It is still not fixed in Python.Please use new python test framework.
Done
The description is poorly formatted.
Fixed.
Python 3 should be enabled.
Done.
There is an issue with the testing that happened to me.
I'm unsure if it can be changed at this point in the kata's life, but:
You have a random testcase generate
randint(900, 1007)
.The
randint()
function includes the value 1007, which isn't in A001055.A minor, and very hard issue to catch, but I experienced it.
Thanks! :D
Looks to be fixed in Ruby.
I don't think "higher and equals to" is correct. Techninally, it's a valid condition, but the result would be empty, since no number is higher than another and equals to it at the same time.
The description of the task could be more clear. To be honest, I didn't understand what this kata is about until I saw it explained by examples. Also, in the text there were some mistakes steming from the lack of fluency in English. Nothing huge but I would advise getting some native English speaker as a proofreader. But all in all an interesting kata. Good idea!
Hi @TheKid. Thanks for your observation. That's why the feedback is so important.I'll make a review of the instructions in order to make them more understandable. Thanks for your time in solving this kata.
Instructions fixed! If you a suggestion let me know it! :)
The supplied test cases have got a typo in them at line 22:
str_: "lower than"
should bestr_ = "lower than"
Other than that, nice kata. :)
Thank you Christian for your good observation. It's solved. Thanks for your time, too!
The description states:
while the tests expect
a to (b + 1) included
I'm grateful for your good observations. I've fixed it. Thanks a lot! It's solved!
Sorry I answered too fast. Now I saw your point. It's something bigger than I thought. Let me work on it some minutes. It's not solved yet .
Now it's solved. Feel free to message me if you see anything else. Thanks for your time.