-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix inconsistent wording #826
Conversation
The second test expects the function to return 80 when there is an order of 40 apples, but the current wording implies returning 40 will pass as well
Nice catch! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
@all-contributors please add @dbednar230 for content |
@diannasoriel I've put up a pull request to add @dbednar230! 🎉 |
I am sorry @diannasoriel and @dbednar230 Thank you @Mark-S-Hill for pointing this out. |
@suryapandian you're right 🙈 I'll revert it |
I will be more careful looking at PRs going forward :) |
The second test expects the function to return 80 when there is an order of 40 apples, but the current wording implies returning 40 will pass as well
The second test expects the function to return 80 when there is an order of 40 apples, but the current wording implies returning 40 will pass as well
The second test expects the function to return 80 when there is an order of 40 apples, but the current wording implies returning 40 will pass as well
The second test expects the function to return 80 when there is an order of 40 apples, but the current wording implies returning 40 will pass as well
The second test expects the function to return 80 when there is an order of 40 apples, but the current wording implies returning 40 will pass as well