search

exercism / problem-specifications

Shared metadata for exercism exercises.
MIT License
326 stars 541 forks source link

Update canonical-data.json #2357

Closed mohamad-shoumar closed 8 months ago

mohamad-shoumar commented 8 months ago

Added a check where position of X is not at last position

github-actions[bot] commented 8 months ago

Hello. Thanks for opening a PR on Exercism 🙂

We ask that all changes to Exercism are discussed on our Community Forum before being opened on GitHub. To enforce this, we automatically close all PRs that are submitted. That doesn't mean your PR is rejected but that we want the initial discussion about it to happen on our forum where a wide range of key contributors across the Exercism ecosystem can weigh in.

You can use this link to copy this into a new topic on the forum. If we decide the PR is appropriate, we'll reopen it and continue with it, so please don't delete your local branch.

If you're interested in learning more about this auto-responder, please read this blog post.

Note: If this PR has been pre-approved, please link back to this PR on the forum thread and a maintainer or staff member will reopen it.

IsaacG commented 8 months ago

See existing test 28025280-2c39-4092-9719-f3234b89c627

MatthijsBlom commented 8 months ago

Test 28025280-2c39-4092-9719-f3234b89c627 proved insufficient to catch the solution that inspired this test.

Presently there is no test about candidate codes containing both a valid and an invalid X. The test case proposed here does cover this case, but I'm not sure it is the best one. When I presented it to Mohamad I did not plan on it being included among the canonical test cases.

IsaacG commented 8 months ago

Should we move the discussion to the forum? Changes should be discussed there prior to opening PRs.

MatthijsBlom commented 8 months ago

I was not planning on championing this proposal, and will not participate in a forum discussion, sorry.

I'm just dropping by here to clear up a confusion that landed in my GH notifications feed.

The only thing I might otherwise have wanted to add in the future: a better test case would be, I think, a random candidate number ending in X that is valid, except that it also contains an X in another place (making it invalid). The randomness would be there to signal that nothing special is going on, other than the Xs.