Ad
  • Custom User Avatar

    god this is massive...

  • Custom User Avatar

    This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution

  • Default User Avatar

    This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution

  • Default User Avatar

    Hi, I got a weird error in test. It says test passed but then shows a failure which is not clear to me what it means.
    For example, here is the test:

    test.it("should be able to handle a list of length 6")
    assert_linked_list_equals(alternating_split(build_one_two_three_four_five_six()).first, build_list([1, 3, 5]), "First list of alternating_split(1 -> 2 -> 3 -> ... 6 -> None) should be 1 -> 3 -> 5 -> None")

    should be able to handle a list of length 6
    Test Passed
    First list of alternating_split(1 -> 2 -> 3 -> ... 6 -> None) should be 1 -> 3 -> 5 -> None: 5 should equal 3

    It first has "Test PAssed"

    But then shows the 2nd error msg. I don't understand what it means by "5 should equal 3". My list is exactly the same as the expected.

    Please help!
    Thank you!

  • Default User Avatar

    TypeError: argument 2 to map() must support iteration

    does anyone get above error ?

  • Default User Avatar

    Same here.
    Unless there is this line in the test, how is it going to succeed ?!
    Primes = Primes()

  • Default User Avatar

    I have the same problem! Shouldn't the test be front, back = front_back_split(source, front, back) such that front and back gets assigned? I passed all the run test by changing them to such but can't submit successfully because they are not assigined.

  • Default User Avatar

    Maybe they could test something 100 times smaller with (linearly? quadratically?) proportionally less time for us test using 'Run tests', so that we have the benefit of not having to load 20MB of numbers.

  • Default User Avatar

    is it possible to add the long test case to test?

  • Default User Avatar

    This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution

  • Default User Avatar

    "My below solution is to leave the "state" of the locker unchanged if the number of locker is a multiple of the run." I would say it's the other way around, i.e. on the 7th run he only alters the state of all multiples of 7. But I agree that kata description is a bit confusing.

  • Default User Avatar

    This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution