4 kyu
Detective, ¡find the suspects!
Loading description...
Graphs
Algorithms
Performance
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.
Nice kata, this one is quite challenging indeed.
Could someone advise whether I am misinterpreting the instructions, or whether this is an incorrect test:
The test result says
81
(among other similar examples) should be included in the output.The rows with
# used in P
noted appear to be used in a path ([698, 5290, 9782, 2332, 92, 81]
) which contains a friend of the prince (2332
). This leads me to believe the ID of81
should not be included as per the formula in this section in the instructions:Is it simply that the end of the formula is not accurate (p∈/F), or am I mistaken?
The fixed tests are not fixed, they are relying on the ref solution. Meaning if the ref solution is wrong, there is no guarantee on the specs. At all.
Also, the fixed tests should hold all the needed data for each test in one place: input data, princ and thief ids, and also the expected output. The sample tests need to also be updated with this.
Who the hell reviewed the random tests and didn't notice THIS:
Hi,
Something isn't specified "correctly", apparently, but more importantly, the efficiency tests are using some outputs that are built entirely differently of all the other tests (edit: that, or the problematic case comes up more frequently when the number of nodes is huge): I currenlty have a solution (fast enough) that is passing all the tests, but returns wrong results on some efficiency tests only. Problem being: how am I supposed to find the hidden spec/stuff I misunderstood on inputs with more than 4000 nodes...?
some other solutions are only passing the tests from time to time (the current top solution, for example) => something is wrong somewhere.
Note: according to the description ("algorithmic side"), a friendship path thief -> prince -> firend of prince make all of them suspect, while this doesnt look right because the thief himself is a friend (not that problematic), but this also means there is another friend in the friendship path, meaning none can be suspected...? eidt: mmh, the thief is excluded, so I guess that part is ok, but this situation still looks pretty weird. A clarification and a specific fixed test for that is needed, at the very least.
Also complete lack of specification regarding expected time complexity etc.
This comment has been hidden.
The thief cannot be a prince's friend. Thank you, I'll review the testcases and clarify it in the description
This comment has been hidden.
Performance tag should be mentioned?
Added
Initial code arguments are missing the other two arguments (the prince and the thief).
Fixed