two-bucket: fix incorrect test case #941
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"version": probably should be updated.
Though there is a bit of a discussion taking place at #938, you may not need to update "version":.... Likely just the third digit would need to change, 1.1.0 to 1.1.1. It would only mean that any test generators (manual or automatic) should be re-run.
What do you think @petertseng and @Insti?
|
1.2.0 ? The result of a test has changed, this may mean solutions that once passed now fail. (plus or minus whatever #938 decides.) |
Works for me. @cmccandless please change |
|
Version updated to 1.2.0 |
|
This should be squashed when it is merged. |
|
@rpottsoh Would it be easier for me to go ahead and squash, or is there a simple way to do that from GitHub? I don't have much experience merging pull requests from command line, and that's mostly what I use. |
You may squash via the command line if you like. Or you may leave it, and the one who merges the PR will squash, since GitHub provides the way to do so. I haven't yet seen a way that GitHub provides the submitter of the PR to squash via web, so if you want to do it you will be doing it via the command line. You are welcome do to so, or not, as you please. |
|
If there's an easy way for the merger to squash, I'll leave it alone.
Corey McCandless
…On Oct 10, 2017, 16:37, at 16:37, Peter Tseng ***@***.***> wrote:
> Would it be easier for me to go ahead and squash, or is there a
simple way to do that from GitHub?
You may squash via the command line if you like. Or you may leave it,
and the one who *merges* the PR will squash, since GitHub provides the
way to do so. I haven't yet seen a way that GitHub provides the
*submitter* of the PR to squash via web, so if you want to do it you
will be doing it via the command line.
You are welcome do to so, or not, as you please.
--
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#941 (comment)
|
|
Squashed and merged, thanks @cmccandless ❤️ |
) Note that two-bucket was added to the Rust track at #375 At the time it declared 1.0.0 compliance, but was actually compliant with 1.2.0 already! Further updates to 1.3.0 and 1.4.0 require no action on the Rust track's part. 1.0.1: Fix exercise name exercism/problem-specifications#715 Unversioned(!): Change descriptions exercism/problem-specifications#716 (Our descriptions are no better or worse, so might as well keep them) 1.1.0: Add cases where goal equals one bucket's capacity exercism/problem-specifications#763 Rust already had these cases, so just update the descriptions 1.2.0: Fix a test case added in 1.1.0 exercism/problem-specifications#911 exercism/problem-specifications#941 Rust already had the correct values, so no action. 1.3.0: move inputs to `input` object exercism/problem-specifications#1084 1.4.0: rename JSON keys to camelCase exercism/problem-specifications#1136
Resolves #911