Closed raphjaph closed 3 months ago
I don't understand why these tests are failing, i hate the html tests.
The only additional information that the range page has is the total number of sats in the range. Instead of adding a (range)
link, we could instead directly add the value to the ranges:
0–10 (10 sats)
And remove the range page entirely. The range page is one of the most useless pages anyways.
I like that, will remove the ranges page in this PR
It's done but I can't figure out what's wrong with the html tests. Could you maybe glance at them for 2mins? Maybe it'll jump out to you
Is the the parens? (…)
is the regex grouping operator, so it doesn't match a literal (…)
. I would just remove that (range)
note anyways.
we could instead directly add the value to the ranges:
0–10 (10 sats)
Wouldn't 0-10 be (11 sats) since the range should be inclusive on both sides? For example, this output shows that its range is 600 sats, but isn't it actually 601?
I think we have to change how we display this. It's actually a half open range like so [0, 10), which means the last is not included.
3900