prime-factors: use cases of x-common #481
Conversation
|
(My inclination is go for 3, but I didn't want to spend the time if nobody else cared) |
|
3 is more consistent with most other test suites, but it is indeed questionable whether it is worth the effort. Maybe create a separate issue, but then for checking all test suites if they include the descriptions? |
|
I don't necessarily think we need descriptions for all exercises - roman-numerals doesn't really need any https://github.com/exercism/xhaskell/blob/master/exercises/roman-numerals/test/Tests.hs - unless exercism/problem-specifications#451 comes up with something good. |
|
Considering that one of the goals of Exercism seems to be keeping some degree of cross-language homogeneity, I would favor option 3, even in cases where the descriptions do not add too much to the tests. |
| , ("prime number", 2, [2] ) | ||
| , ("square of a prime", 9, [3, 3] ) | ||
| , ("cube of a prime", 8, [2, 2, 2] ) | ||
| , ("product of primes and non-primes", 12, [2, 2, 3] ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
someone who is looking closely will see that there is a shortcut being taken in the indentation: the comma overhangs the 3 two lines below.
exercism/problem-specifications#513
reviewers: your opinion will be appreciated on whether to incorporate the test descriptions into the file.
iton them so thye become test descriptions.