Skip to content

[WIP] Full-scale test update #1262

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 85 commits into from
Closed

[WIP] Full-scale test update #1262

wants to merge 85 commits into from

Conversation

mrcfps
Copy link

@mrcfps mrcfps commented Feb 14, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Updates with nothing changed, such as applying new input policy, correcting naming styles, etc:

Updates with changes to tests:

mrcfps added 30 commits February 14, 2018 18:01
@mrcfps
hello-world: update test to v1.1.0
709b674
@mrcfps
leap: update test to v1.3.0
dca90da
@mrcfps
reverse-string: update test to v1.1.0
0617557
@mrcfps
pangram: update tests to v1.4.0
42eacc5
@mrcfps
rna-transcription: update tests to v1.2.0
4475eef
@mrcfps
hamming: update tests to v2.1.0
1fa3ba0
@mrcfps
word-count: update tests to v1.2.0
81119bf
@mrcfps
gigasecond: update tests to v1.1.0
105987c
@mrcfps
run-length-encoding: update tests to v1.1.0
634a7c0
@mrcfps
meetup: update tests to v1.1.0
0873424
@mrcfps
rotational-cipher: update tests to v1.2.0
7adc971
@mrcfps
difference-of-squares: update tests to v1.2.0
8490fc2
@mrcfps
anagram: update tests to v1.2.0
dbf4c25
@mrcfps
allergies: update tests to v1.1.0
c150717
@mrcfps
robot-simulator: update tests to v2.2.0
a1617c0
@mrcfps
sieve: update tests to v1.1.0
c743097
@mrcfps
atbash-cipher: update tests to v1.1.0
b784344
@mrcfps
sum-of-multiples: update tests to v1.2.0
84028a0
@mrcfps
acronym: update tests to v1.3.0
ff12aa1
@mrcfps
say: update tests to v1.1.0
d63fafa
@mrcfps
largest-series-product: update tests to v1.1.0
4d87c0f
@mrcfps
kindergarten-garden: update tests to v1.1.0
c36ced9
@mrcfps
flatten-array: update tests to v1.2.0
ef861f7
@mrcfps
roman-numerals: update tests to v1.2.0
ce7ade8
@mrcfps
space-age: update tests to v1.1.0
978a597
@mrcfps
luhn: update tests to v1.1.0
1ff3417
@mrcfps
prime-factors: update tests to v1.1.0
7f1de0c
@mrcfps
pig-latin: update tests to v1.2.0
e3ada3f
@mrcfps
scrabble-score: update tests to v1.1.0
30b1bfe
@mrcfps
crypto-square: update tests to v3.2.0
44ffd83
@mrcfps mrcfps mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2018
Closed
mrcfps and others added 10 commits February 14, 2018 22:25
@mrcfps
Copy link
Author

mrcfps commented Feb 15, 2018

@cmccandless While I'm working on updating tests, I've encountered two exercises that differ quite a lot from canonical data:

  • food-chain: Currently there is even no concept of input in the Python implementation, but canonical data has input parameters startVerse and endVerse. Since this exercise resembles so much to house, should I adopt the same test style?
  • binary-search-tree: It seems this exercise had been implemented before canonical data was proposed, so a thorough discussion on updating this exercise is needed. Maybe a new PR?

@cmccandless
Copy link
Contributor

@mrcfps

food-chain: Currently there is even no concept of input in the Python implementation, but canonical data has input parameters startVerse and endVerse. Since this exercise resembles so much to house, should I adopt the same test style?

Yes, I believe adopting a similar style to house, twelve-days, and beer-song would be the best practice.

binary-search-tree: It seems this exercise had been implemented before canonical data was proposed, so a thorough discussion on updating this exercise is needed. Maybe a new PR?

Yes, I recall commenting in #773 that canonical data was being implemented; I'm not sure why I didn't push then to wait until the data was merged to problem-specifications. I think a new PR would be the best practice.

I will review this PR once you've made the changes to house, but ordinarily separate PRs are preferred when different exercises are involved (the exception to this is when the same issue is being addressed in all exercises, such as overhauling exception usage and handling). Separate PRs make it easier for maintainers to review and selectively merge without having to wait on the entire batch of changes to pass review.

@cmccandless cmccandless self-requested a review February 15, 2018 14:57
@mrcfps
Copy link
Author

mrcfps commented Feb 15, 2018

@cmccandless Separating PRs would be a better idea, and thank you for pointing this out. I'll keep this PR as a checklist, and close it when everything is done.

@cmccandless cmccandless removed their request for review February 16, 2018 22:32
@mrcfps
Copy link
Author

mrcfps commented Feb 28, 2018

I think we're done with this wave of tests updates (except react for callback issues).

@mrcfps mrcfps closed this Feb 28, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@mrcfps @cmccandless