Contradictory automatic analysis

Hi! :wave:

I just pushed an exercise on the Python track and got this automatic analysis:

This basically say that I should rather do… what I am already doing.

Is it intentional?

That’s not intentional. The feedback is based on the assumption that you’d doing for k, v in dict.items() … which you’re not. It looks like the representer is smart enough to represent different variable names as similar solutions and the feedback doesn’t take that into account.

It looks like I can edit that feedback :slight_smile:

When the code does use single character variable names, it’s good feedback. But it the variable names are fungible, it’s not great. I suppose it can be a celebratory message with a note that the representer doesn’t match on var names and, if the var names are a single letter, then this note applies. But I’m leaning towards not commenting on variable names when we aren’t actually matching on them.

What do other mentors think?

1 Like

From How to give feedback on representations: “As representers could normalize identifier names, you shouldn’t comment on them.

I’d vote for removing that feedback.

1 Like

Thanks. I updated the feedback.

1 Like