In the test runs there isAmethyst Octopus (2 spaces) instead of Amethyst Octopus (1 space) which irritated me using IDE search function. I would like to fix that.
1 Like
I assume it’s incorrect in the table in the instructions? I am decently confident @BethanyG will take a PR for that, but let’s wait for their sign-off.
1 Like
@akmaekki7 - Thanks for pointing this out, and apologies for missing your first reporting instance!
@SleeplessByte – thanks for @ing me. 
While I agree that it’s irritating, the double space is in multiple places throughout the test data and not in the instructions, so changing it could invalidate some (or all) of the 14, 455+ existing solutions for this exercise.
One way around this would be to change the instruction table to have two spaces, and to mention that the double space is there on purpose. Not really true - but. 
All that being said, the majority of correct solutions should have no issue either way, since they should only be extracting whole strings and not substrings from the input tuples.
I’d be willing to accept a PR, but it needs to make sure that all instances of Amethyst Octopus be properly replaced in the test data/expected results, and that the exemplar solution be run against the new tests to make sure it still passes (if it doesn’t, it means we invalidate all existing solutions - and I am not sure I want that).
You will also need to make sure that the format and quoting of the tests & expected results do not change - it may not be the way Black formats, but it is the way the track currently formats. 
Let us know here when you’ve opened the PR (the bot will close it automatically) and we can review it.
1 Like
Hello,
thank you both for your help and advise. It seems that in this case, the value added by some fix is too small to justify the effort. And I still have to get used to thinking about this “backwards compatibility”. So, I don’t mind to create a PR for this issue, but only if you think it makes sense :)
2 Likes
If it makes sense for your learning to go through the process, I am all for supporting you. This is indeed a real-world scenario where something went ignored, so now it’s much more work to fix it than to keep perpetuating the problem. 
Since I’m loaded up with other changes I need to make, this would end up in my “do later later” pile, since it doesn’t really impact the point of the exercise, nor does it impede student learning or understanding (it just irritates the detail-oriented ones).
I might even say that it helps student learning in the sense that its “dirty” data - which we are all bound to encounter in the “real world”. But that’s also me inventing an excuse.
In any case, should you want to do the changes, link the PR here and I can reopen and review. But also no harm/shame if you don’t want to go to the effort. 
Ok, then let’s keep it as is. I am a detail-oriented person 
, but also pragmatic to some extend. Thank you.
2 Likes