Update tests of Luhn #491
Comments
This was referenced Jan 11, 2017
|
The current description implies that "0" is a valid string, according to the tests it is not. PR is #492 |
IanWhitney
pushed a commit
to IanWhitney/xrust
that referenced
this issue
Jan 14, 2017
This mostly follows the current test suite (exercism/problem-specifications#491), with one change. The final canonical test adds an alphabetical character to a known invalid string and then asserts that it's still invalid. Instead what the test should do is alter a known-valid string and show that it is now invalid. That's what I've done here. I'll also propose the change to canonical test suite.
IanWhitney
pushed a commit
to IanWhitney/xrust
that referenced
this issue
Jan 14, 2017
Closes exercism#237 This mostly follows the current test suite (exercism/problem-specifications#491), with one change. The final canonical test adds an alphabetical character to a known invalid string and then asserts that it's still invalid. Instead what the test should do is alter a known-valid string and show that it is now invalid. That's what I've done here. I'll also propose the change to canonical test suite.
stkent
added a commit
to exercism/java
that referenced
this issue
Jan 15, 2017
Fixes #245. Tracking issue: exercism/problem-specifications#491
stkent
added a commit
to exercism/java
that referenced
this issue
Jan 18, 2017
Fixes #245. Tracking issue: exercism/problem-specifications#491
stkent
added a commit
to exercism/java
that referenced
this issue
Jan 18, 2017
Fixes #245. Tracking issue: exercism/problem-specifications#491
stkent
added a commit
to exercism/java
that referenced
this issue
Jan 20, 2017
Fixes #245. Tracking issue: exercism/problem-specifications#491
stkent
added a commit
to exercism/java
that referenced
this issue
Jan 20, 2017
Fixes #245. Tracking issue: exercism/problem-specifications#491
emcoding
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 19, 2018
Opens up conversation about implementation choice
|
it's not useful (there is no action for us to take) to leave this issue open. However, individuals interested in how tracks should keep up-to-date with problem-specifications should look at #524 . Note that the situation has gotten a lot better since the days of this issue, since the JSON file has a version now. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
This is the blazon tracking issue for the updates to Luhn's canonical tests. Those changes were made in #474.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: