Card-tricks: Check if index is >= len(slice)

I did read the Community | Exercism’s Docs, and do understand there are some valid points in there; however I’ve never felt more compelled to NOT want to contribute ever again. I’m immediately hit with an automatic closed PR (although there was the explanation). Then when I post in here, I’m immediately hit with ( what I feel like was) a RTFM. Reading the doc I get the feeling from it that “there 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, don’t bother”

I understand I’m just one voice, but thought I’d 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 @CodeBleu’s suggestion over the line?

@junedev / @tehsphinx – I know both of you are quite busy at the moment, but maybe you can comment as well if you have time.

I care. It’s 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 doesn’t get built because maintainers’ 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? I’m unable to see at a glance what problem this is solving for a student.

(Btw - this is a good example, that it’s 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)

:warning: 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.

I’d also note that the README (^^) does clearly say that all things should be discussed on the forum first. So it shouldn’t come as a shock when it’s auto-closed. If you feel we could make that clearer in the README, please let me know how :slight_smile:

I’d like someone from the Go team to look at the PR, and then we should be good to go.

1 Like