Skip to content
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

Update learning_goals.md #66

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 13, 2025
Merged

Update learning_goals.md #66

merged 3 commits into from
Jan 13, 2025

Conversation

ajfumero8
Copy link

Correct formatting and added my goals


name: solution review
about: A template PR for code review with a checklist

Behavior

Files

  • The file name describes the function's behavior
  • There is a module docstring in the function file
  • The test file's name matches the function file name -
    /tests/test_file_name.py
  • There is a module docstring in the tests file

Unit Tests

  • The test class has a helpful name in PascalCase
  • The test class has a docstring
  • Every unit test has
    • A helpful name
    • A clear docstring
    • Only one assertion
    • There is no logic in the unit test
  • All tests pass
  • There are tests for defensive assertions
  • There are tests for boundary cases

Function Docstring

  • The function's behavior is described
  • The function's arguments are described:
    • Type
    • Purpose
    • Other assumptions (eg. if it's a number, what's the expected range?)
  • The return value is described
    • Type
    • Other assumptions are documented
  • The defensive assertions are documented using Raises:
    • Each assumption about an argument is checked with an assertion
    • Each assertion checks for only one assumption about the argument
  • Include 3 or more (passing!) doctests

The Function

  • The function's name describes it's behavior
  • The function's name matches the file name
  • The function has correct type annotations
  • The function is not called in the function file

Strategy

Do's

  • Variable names help to understand the strategy
  • Any comments are clear and describe the strategy
  • Lines of code are spaced to help show different stages of the strategy

Don'ts

  • The function's strategy is not described in the documentation
  • Comments explain the strategy, not the implementation
  • The function does not have more comments than code
    • If it does, consider finding a new strategy or a simpler implementation

Implementation

  • The code passes the formatting checks
  • The code passes all Ruff linting checks
  • The code has no (reasonable) Pylint errors
    • In code review, you can decide when fixing a Pylint error is helpful and
      when it's too restricting.
  • Variables are named with snake_case
  • Variable names are clear and helpful
  • The code follows the strategy as simply as possible
  • The implementation is as simple as possible given the strategy
  • There are no commented lines of code
  • There are no print statements anywhere
  • The code includes defensive assertions
  • Defensive assertions include as little logic as possible

@likechrisss likechrisss merged commit b74f37f into main Jan 13, 2025
10 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants