The instructions for this exercise talk about a concatenate method, but the tests actually call a method named concat.
I opened a pull request to fix this, then a bot told me to create this thread.
The instructions are common across all tracks, see problem-specifications
This way, every track benefits if we make improvements to the instructions. (Some tracks append to the standard instructions, including TypeScript.)
Line 8 mentions
The precise number and names of the operations to be implemented will be track dependent to avoid conflicts with existing names
See also this doc.
Wow, I completely glossed over this. Thanks.
It’s somewhat confusing to commit files that shouldn’t be edited without a comment saying they are generated. Other generated files like tests.toml contain such a comment.
If there’s appetite for it I could look into what it’d take to add such a comment to instructions.md files.
1 Like
It is documented
If the exercise implements a Problem Specifications Exercise, this file’s contents should match the Problem Specification Exercise’s
introduction.mdfile. configlet has functionality to automatically sync the contents of this file.
Yes, but it’d be convenient for the fact that this is generated to also be in-band (like it is in tests.toml) to make it harder to miss.
How I got here: I clicked the “Edit via GitHub” link on the exercise page when I noticed what I thought was a typo, made the edit, then submitted a pull request. Arguably I should’ve tracked down the contributing guide and read it before doing any of that, but from my perspective I was submitting a quick fix for a simple typo, and I neglected to do so.
2 Likes
Yeah, I’m not sure what the Edit via GitHub link is intended to facilitate. Chesterton’s fence would suggest there’s a rational reason since I believe it’s been present since 2021 with the v3 launch. During v2, I was a very occasional student, not a contributor, but I don’t recall a link like that.
That’s probably a separate thread though. Maybe some of the folks present for the v3 migration can shine a light. :)
Given that many repos are closed to contributions, the value of that link is probably worth reconsidering. But that’d be a question for @iHiD
1 Like
It was there since before v3, so yeah.
@mkantor would you be willing to do a PR to update the tests, stub, and proof.ci.ts? If so, you can link this topic and I’ll review + merge it so you get the rep.
1 Like