Retired
Black Box (retired)
Loading description...
Algorithms
Mathematics
Puzzles
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.
It seems that currently there is no way to avoid the use of
try/exceptin at least one of the functions.This is definitely not expected and should be mentioned in the description.
The tests do rounding to check if the returned value is close enough to the expected value, but the anti-cheat check doesn't, which causes false positive.
Lots of existing solutions, including author solution, fail at certain combination of values by division by zero. These edge cases should be tested as fixed tests.
Looks like you are cheating(18 times) without arithmetic operators (and withoutimport).What else is forbidden?
Should be specified in description.
This test checks that the values that had been returned by usages of
boxincludes the expected value.Tests should use
describe/it.Someone has fixed it
Ranges of tested values should be clearly specified. For instance, the reference solution does not work for
multiply(0, 1)but it works formultiply(1, 0).Initial code is wrongly formatted (wrong identation).
Someone has fixed it
Hi,
General advise: kata with restrictions in python are generally just a bad idea (it's too much of a flexible language)
Is there another option to check rules enforcement?
there are... sort of... but it's a real pain to set up. Honestly, it isn't worth of the effort ;/
Testing is not clear either: by importing the builtin operators, I can pass all tests except for 2. However, the error message is absolutely useless:
Error message should be clear now
Description unclear: what's the fuss with this
box?Description changed.
You can't use arithmetic operators. All you have is:
There appears to be no enforcement of the rule.
Fixed!!!!
Not quite fixed
Fixed again))))
It's like playing whack-a-mole with loopholes
LOL! best comment ever! (no offense mezhibovskiy)
Just not cheat but solve the puzzle)
https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/5ecd649d2d53be0001c69413/groups/5ecdbf084f70c10001551d76 https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/5ecd649d2d53be0001c69413/groups/5ecdb9b8bc7368000169c808 https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/5ecd649d2d53be0001c69413/groups/5ecda978a200d20001a50bc5 https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/5ecd649d2d53be0001c69413/groups/5ecda330c602900001cd61a1 https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/5ecd649d2d53be0001c69413/groups/5ecd9bb650fbac000110b80b https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/5ecd649d2d53be0001c69413/groups/5ecd9afbc602900001cd6148