crypto-square — tests incorrectly specify how chunking of normalized cipher text works.

[jtigger]

(originally exercism/exercism#2432)

[jtigger]

@kytrinyx — moved this issue to the Java track; feel free to close exercism/exercism#2432.

[jtigger]

@matthewmorgan — thanks for the worked out tests!

[matthewmorgan]

No worries, happy to contribute a little.

[jtigger]

@kytrinyx I notice there is no .json for crypto-square. Seems like the intent behind these files is to prevent this kind of deviation. True?

If so, I don't mind pulling together that data for this problem and reworking the Java version of the problem to use it. If we did the same for the JavaScript and Ruby tracks, we've got a seed of goodness in this corner of the garden. 🏡

[kytrinyx]

True! I was just thinking about that. I'll write up a generator for the Ruby and the Go tracks.

[matthewmorgan]

@kytrinyx I think we're going to need you to comment on this one. @jtigger and I had another look at this, and it appears #64 made the tests conform to what the majority of the tracks are doing. But, what the majority of the tracks are doing is wrong:

Chunk sizes are wrong: The README gives several examples of how to deal with strings of text that can be made into perfect ( ie n X n ) squares, and those that can be made into imperfect ( r X c ) squares. In all the README examples, the imperfect squares are r X c with the additional constraint that r >= c.

As documented by @jtigger here most of the tracks take a 26-letter string and chunk it in to 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4. This is not the behavior specified in the README, and seems like a error from early on that got propagated to many tracks.

There's no json file for this in x-common, but it appears this needs to be changed in many places, not just on the Java track. @jtigger and I are happy to change it here, but what do you think about putting an issue in to x-common?

[kytrinyx]

Yeah, we need to discuss this in x-common, and make sure everyone agrees on the format, and each track can fix their own issue. I also have a new tool that lets me submit identical issues to all the relevant track repositories.

Would you mind creating the x-common issue?

[matthewmorgan]

The README for this problem has been updated in exercism/problem-specifications#204, the config.json was updated in exercism/problem-specifications#250, and the test suite on this track conforms with both, so I'm going to close this issue.

Thanks everyone!