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.
Python translation
I don't know if it is possible in python not to create an instance of the class or the class itself to be able to address its attributes.
therefore, you have to make the NumClass itself, and in the tests create instance Num = NumClass(), on which the tests are made.
It is also possible to discuss the need to implement dunder methods for comparison (equality), arithmetic. because it wasn't in the original kata.
JavaScript Translation
I suppose this task was made specifically for Ruby, but you can do the same thing in JS too
Do you know what
890625n
is?Do you know what big integers are in JS?
EDIT: OH I am stupid, and the kata is Ruby only.
how do i solve this ? expected '890625n' to equal 890625n
@Iron Fingers, the random tests call
to_i
to check if the result type is an Integer. Then it callsto_i
again to check the value, not on the return value of the firstto_i
. If your implementation resets the number on the first call toto_i
, just cache the last value and return it on the repeat call.Why is there a discrepancy between fixed and random tests?
(Can you see this ^?)
I tried applying the to_i twice in the sample tests and it does work. Like you said applying to_i to an Integer shouldn't return 0 and it clearly is not returning 0 in the sample tests. Not sure what else to try.
yup, this was after farekkusu's update. the function
to_i
is called two times in random tests, and only once in sample tests.Just try to get rid of that, you'll be done.
Honestly I don't think this can be treated as an issue, because applying
.to_i
onInteger
should not return0
.I am seeing a very peculiar issue. All random tests fail saying that my code is returning 0. However if I try for the same number in my own tests they pass.
Fixed.
Needs random tests
My 2 cents:
While in a "learning" perspective this would be considered "cheating" as it completely misses the (might or might not exist) lesson, it's completely irrelevant to what best practice is. Best practice is simply the most efficient and readable code, period. Showing the explicit form as the best practice teaches you to not blindly applying loops to problems all the time, just like you'd always use good external libraries and built-in objects so you wouldn't have to reimplement everything or write code in a too low-level manner. That's how programming irl works.
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
Loading more items...