Loading collection data...
Collections are a way for you to organize kata so that you can create your own training routines. Every collection you create is public and automatically sharable with other warriors. After you have added a few kata to a collection you and others can train on the kata contained within the collection.
Get started now by creating a new collection.
Rejected:
no random tests
object
is not requiredThanks. I solved it minutes after I had last posted.
See my issue above. You should not modify the input to pass tests.
From the description: "Your function can modify the initial board value as much as you like, but the test suite will validate what you return, so don't forget to return it".
But if you modify rows of the initial board then you will not pass tests. Tests call the user solution with a shallow copy of
board
.The one below. The onlyone that is still opened... ;)
edit: looking again at your input, I'm not sure this is the same thing. I didn't find the formatting of your message in the test suite. I'm not sure what's going on there, but, in any case : are you mutating the input?
Also check for the absence of global variables, because there are some in the tests utilities ( :rolleyes: ).Edit: I removed them all.Which issue is it below? There are so many. Your comment is not veyr helpful. :(
duplicated issue (see below)
The tests appear broken. This looks like it contradicts the instructions:
input:
[ 8, 8, 8, 8 ],
[ 2, 0, 8, 16 ],
[ 0, 0, 8, 8 ],
[ 0, 0, 4, 0 ]
Expected:
[32, 0, 0, 0]
[2, 8, 16, 0]
[16, 0, 0, 0]
[4, 0, 0, 0]
instead got:
[16, 16, 0, 0]
[2, 8, 16, 0]
[16, 0, 0, 0]
[4, 0, 0, 0]
Rejected
No random tests
No useful assertion messages
Irrelevant block message ->
"multiply(2, 2)" should "return 4"
This is lacking. The second parameter, 'wager', appears to be the # of handshake cards, but 'wager' isn't even in the description.
Using JSON.stringify here is quite poor, imo. It's wasteful and the opposite of 'best practices'.
You don't need the nodes' values. They might not even have values.
It doesn't depend on using the node value. The values could all be identical. The nodes don't even need to store a value inside of them.
I like recursion, but there's an easy non-recursive solution.
Translation rejected as there's no response from author about the above issues.
Feel free to open a new translation once the fixed version of the tests have been made.
Loading more items...