I did read the Community | Exercismās Docs, and do understand there are some valid points in there; however Iāve never felt more compelled to NOT want to contribute ever again. Iām immediately hit with an automatic closed PR (although there was the explanation). Then when I post in here, Iām immediately hit with ( what I feel like was) a RTFM. Reading the doc I get the feeling from it that āthere is too much trouble for a lot of people, so unless your contribution is extraordinary, or fixing some wording in the exercise that might make things clearer, donāt botherā
I understand Iām just one voice, but thought Iād still share my feelings in case anyone cares.
P.S. I do really like Exercism and have recommended it to a lot of people.
I donāt have golang track maintainer permissions, but I think this is a reasonable PR to add this test case. I would suggest add your test case in addition to the existing, keeping the one where the index is just greater (8) but another one to catch the extreme index (9 as you have it in your PR).
One thing I donāt know is if the test cases are generated from a script for this exercise, and in that case this would have to be an upstream change in the problem-specifications repo, then a test case generator PR for the golang track.
@ErikSchierboom can you comment here how to get @CodeBleuās suggestion over the line?
@junedev / @tehsphinx ā I know both of you are quite busy at the moment, but maybe you can comment as well if you have time.
I care. Itās also the case that we have a lot of PRs, most of which are very low value (lots of people use Exercism to try and get a first PR in) and that means the actual stuff that you like about Exercism doesnāt get built because maintainersā time is so taken up with reviewing things. So we have to make pragmatic tradeoffs that mean Exercism actually get moves forward, whereas before this we put a whole load of effort into basically standing still.
That said, we have merged more PRs since we made these changes than we did before, so PRs are very welcome. We just ask for the discussion to be had on the forum first, before opening it.
So to do that here, regarding this test case - do you have an example solution where this catches something that currently fails? Iām unable to see at a glance what problem this is solving for a student.
(Btw - this is a good example, that itās unclear to me what this does, so I have to ask, you have to answer, and we end up having a longer discussion that takes time. If instead the community has that discussion on the forum and a consensus is reached, it means by the time this hits one of the people who are super-busy with Exericsm, such as core maintainers, they can basically just wave things through)
Please be aware that this repository currently does not accept community contributions. This blog post explains the details. If you have any feedback or experience problems, you can bring them up in the Go section of the Exercism forum.
Please be aware that this repository currently does not accept community contributions. This blog post explains the details. If you have any feedback or experience problems, you can bring them up in the Go section of the Exercism forum.Iād also note that the README (^^) does clearly say that all things should be discussed on the forum first. So it shouldnāt come as a shock when itās auto-closed. If you feel we could make that clearer in the README, please let me know how 
Iād like someone from the Go team to look at the PR, and then we should be good to go.
The PR was merged.
The tl;dr is that this changes catches solutions that might just check if index == len(slice) when returning an error.
Since this is a concept exercise, we donāt have automated generators for the test cases.