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

Solution for (common elements) challenge #126

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 11, 2025
Merged

Solution for (common elements) challenge #126

merged 4 commits into from
Jan 11, 2025

Conversation

Mo-Altayeb
Copy link


Solution and tests for challenge #32

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
    • It's ok to have extra helper functions if necessary, like with mergesort
  • The function has correct type annotations
  • The function is not called at the top level of the function file
    • Recursive solutions can call the function from inside the function body

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 any docstrings or tests
  • 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

@Mo-Altayeb Mo-Altayeb self-assigned this Jan 11, 2025
@Mo-Altayeb Mo-Altayeb linked an issue Jan 11, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@Bikaze
Copy link

Bikaze commented Jan 11, 2025

Hey Mohamed Please resolve the conflicts and you are good to go. You can even resolve them in place here on github.
image

Bikaze
Bikaze previously approved these changes Jan 11, 2025
Copy link

@Bikaze Bikaze left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good work 👌

@Mo-Altayeb
Copy link
Author

Hey Mohamed Please resolve the conflicts and you are good to go. You can even resolve them in place here on github. image

Conflicts resolved 👍 You should be able to merge it now.

@Bikaze Bikaze merged commit 9d930ff into main Jan 11, 2025
10 checks passed
@Bikaze Bikaze deleted the common-elements branch January 11, 2025 20:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Find common elements
2 participants