Why not use tests for some exercises #127

Hades32 · 2019-03-18T17:59:32Z

There are several exercises of the style

if you_did_it_right {
  print("great");
} else {
  print("try again");
}

Why aren't these exercises done as tests?

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

MForever78 · 2019-03-23T09:31:10Z

Echo on this. some exercises can now pass by just not having compiling errors.

This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to rust-lang#198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see rust-lang#127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.

fix(primitive_types4): Fail on a slice covering the wrong area I noticed this issue and it seems like a similar one was raised/fixed in #160 this way. This is my first contribution to this repo (or any Rust project) so let me know if I messed up or need to fix anything! --- This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to #198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see #127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.

This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to rust-lang#198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see rust-lang#127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.

fix(primitive_types4): Fail on a slice covering the wrong area I noticed this issue and it seems like a similar one was raised/fixed in rust-lang#160 this way. This is my first contribution to this repo (or any Rust project) so let me know if I messed up or need to fix anything! --- This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to rust-lang#198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see rust-lang#127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.

This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to rust-lang#198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see rust-lang#127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.

fix(primitive_types4): Fail on a slice covering the wrong area I noticed this issue and it seems like a similar one was raised/fixed in rust-lang#160 this way. This is my first contribution to this repo (or any Rust project) so let me know if I messed up or need to fix anything! --- This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to rust-lang#198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see rust-lang#127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.

This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to rust-lang#198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see rust-lang#127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.

fix(primitive_types4): Fail on a slice covering the wrong area I noticed this issue and it seems like a similar one was raised/fixed in rust-lang#160 this way. This is my first contribution to this repo (or any Rust project) so let me know if I messed up or need to fix anything! --- This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to rust-lang#198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see rust-lang#127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.

mo8it · 2024-03-27T19:15:02Z

I really appreciate the message of this issue, but it is too unspecific. Could you please point to some specific exercises?

mo8it · 2024-03-27T19:23:54Z

Closing but feel free to open new issues pointing to specific exercises. You are also welcome to submit pull requests :D

komaeda added C-question A-exercises Area: Exercises labels Mar 20, 2019

cjpearce mentioned this issue May 27, 2019

rustlings verify accepts option1.rs prematurely #160

Closed

dylnuge mentioned this issue Aug 18, 2019

fix(primitive_types4): Fail on a slice covering the wrong area #209

Merged

mo8it closed this as completed Mar 27, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Why not use tests for some exercises #127

Why not use tests for some exercises #127

Hades32 commented Mar 18, 2019

MForever78 commented Mar 23, 2019

mo8it commented Mar 27, 2024

mo8it commented Mar 27, 2024

Why not use tests for some exercises #127

Why not use tests for some exercises #127

Comments

Hades32 commented Mar 18, 2019

MForever78 commented Mar 23, 2019

mo8it commented Mar 27, 2024

mo8it commented Mar 27, 2024