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.
Everything works as it should be according to the description. This is just not too simple
These edge cases should also be tested since they are present in example tests:
[1..9,12..15] -- invalid since one single range is allowed
[1,2..20,25] -- invalid since a range has to be the final item
[1,2,3..20] -- invalid since at most one inidivual element can be provided before a range
This was really fun!! My only note besides the lack of random tests is that it would be a lot more helpful to show the query on the test log. Having to use console logs to figure out which query was problematic wasn't fun
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
Weird flex.
I'm only suggesting the removal of those error assertions (and not the addition of new tests to ensure that this feature is implemented), so it wouldn't invalidate any old solutions or anything. If not, it would be good to emphasise in the description that such comparisons are not allowed to be implemented, even if it's possible to do so.
I tested this user's code and I still got tons of anti cheat errors. I don't understand why this happens.
I agree it could be deduced, but do we still want to change a spec after approval? Is it worth it?
It looks like you since solved this, so did you identify the problem?
edit: sorry, I had misunderstood. I agree with you, the tests as they are are not logical
I'm talking about testing if an array-set is a subset of a function-set (which is decidable).
don't you mean the other way around,
A.includes(finiteSet)
?It seems a bit odd to me that
vowelSet.includes(A)
is required to throw an error when such problems are decidable (determining if a finite set is a subset of any other set). Should it really be required that the implementation fails when it doesn't have to?An issue was logged about this by users Invariance & lukaswelinder .
This is not an issue, but a suggestion to change the specification.
Loading more items...