I just ran into this situation where I similarly misunderstood why my test was failing.
I admittedly could/should have read the test output more closely, but I think there’s an opportunity to improve the existing hints with something similar to the comment below:
This was a simple but useful tip here in the forum. It seems like it would also do well as a hint in the actual exercise, and could potentially save some headache for others.
Maybe something like:
## 5. Combine previous steps into one
- Reuse functions implemented in previous steps.
-- There is a [built-in function][io-inspect], useful for debugging, that can write to the standard output more than just strings. That functions accepts options, for example a string that will be written before the passed value.
+- There is a [built-in function][io-inspect], useful for debugging, that can write to the standard output more than just strings. That functions accepts options, for example "label", which will prepend a string to the passed value.
+- The "label" option includes the ":" character for you, you do not need to pass it in with your label text.
What do you all think? Would this be useful or do you think the hints are fine as they are?