Ad
  • Custom User Avatar

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

  • Custom User Avatar

    Translation rejected (bad function name in sample tests, deprecated version and other types and variables changes needed).

  • Default User Avatar

    Fixed C and C++ test code. Sorry for the oversight.

  • Default User Avatar

    Cool kata.
    Same occurs for C - took me some time before I realized source of not correct values.
    Would be cool to add odd numbers of a and b to basic tests for next who will be trying to pass this kata.

  • Default User Avatar
  • Custom User Avatar

    Yes, now it works for me too.

  • Custom User Avatar

    Should be fixed, please check ;-)

    (The reference solution used to calculate carmichael(2) = 0, which I've fixed)

  • Custom User Avatar

    Tickets, please!

    Can you solve the best route to travel, when you have some half-price coupons in your pocket?
  • Custom User Avatar

    Why does the test say for example for n = 2903225426

    Expected: 0, instead got: 60453792

    When clearly 60453792 should be the correct solution, even Wolfram Alpha confirms this.

    PS. And it's the JS version I'm trying, (if there are others :D)

  • Custom User Avatar
  • Custom User Avatar

    aaaaah.... Good point. I will add a test for that, thx. :)

  • Custom User Avatar

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

  • Custom User Avatar

    Mmmmh, that's weird, because I have some tests that should have seen that kind of problems. Maybe there are several intricated things, in your faulty code?

    Do you remember what kind of command was exactly involved? add? bounder? add_chaining?

    I have currently things like this:

    #Invalid \"bounder\" command resulting in butyne skeleton with valid operations:
    Molecule().brancher(4).bounder((3,1,2,1), (3,1,2,1), (3,1,2,1))
    exp = ['Atom(C.1: C2)', 'Atom(C.2: C1,C3,C3,C3)', 'Atom(C.3: C2,C2,C2,C4)', 'Atom(C.4: C3)']
    

    Here, during the last bounding and from what I understand of what you said, it feels like your code should have failed because you'd have gotten something like:

    'Atom(C.1: C2)', 'Atom(C.2: C1,C3,C3,C3,C3)', 'Atom(C.3: C2,C2,C2,C4)', 'Atom(C.4: C3)'
    should equal
    'Atom(C.1: C2)', 'Atom(C.2: C1,C3,C3,C3)', 'Atom(C.3: C2,C2,C2,C4)', 'Atom(C.4: C3)'
    

    Obvisouly, that's not what happened to you, so I wonder what is the underlying "other" bug... :o

  • Custom User Avatar

    I mean the case when we make a bond but it is invalid and will throw an Error. I was still making X bond to Y but then the execution would fail and throw an error (because I was testing the valence-ok:ness separately, not testing both first and only then making the bonds if ok, as it should be done). I guess the fixed tests doesn't include a test for this situation, at least I passed them with my then faulty Atom.connectTo -method.

  • Custom User Avatar

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

  • Loading more items...