There has been some discussion on the #mentors Discord channel about the instructions for two-fer. There’s a section in there discussing whether someone likes cookies, and that has led to confusion for previous mentees who in my experience either were unclear about why liking cookies was mentioned or wrote solutions using an extra parameter for liking cookies.
The tests are the “point of truth”, the README.md/Instructions is the story.
While it may be confusing, the story should not contradict the tests, but the tests are authoritative, and students are expected to read them. The story should not be purposefully confusing, though.
As far as mentoring/review happens on TwoFer in Ruby, I have not seen any solutions taking any steps to acknowledge individual’s tastes on cookies. This is just what I have seen, while not doubting that it happens.
I think this fixes it:
2 Likes
In some ways the phrase that is seemingly missing now;
If no name is given, the result should be “One for you, one for me.”
seemed to be the clarifying point in the story. This may be translated as the clarifying “If a name is given, use it, if not use ‘you’.”
The proposed change still implies that you must check if you know the name or not. The wording above implies no external checking other than that the name is given or not.
1 Like
To be clear, that line and translation is what I have used (by quoting what was in the story’s reading) to give the feedback that ends up having the student not distracted by other things, or focusing on validation other than what is required (the presence of a name being given).