Conversation
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
Great work on the tests you've written! They cover a good range of general cases and edge scenarios.
However, this requires a change because the specific examples listed in the task description have not been included in your test file. To fully meet the requirements, please add tests for the following cases to src/splitInteger.test.js:
splitInteger(8, 1)splitInteger(6, 2)splitInteger(17, 4)splitInteger(32, 6)
Once you add these tests, your solution will be complete!
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
Important
Fix the issues, commit the changes, and then re-request my review using the Re-request review button2 in the Reviewers tab.
Tip
If you have any comments about this review, please leave a message in the Add a comment section below and mention me with the @mateacademy-ai-mentor tag3.
I will read your message during my next review of your pull request. Please do not reply directly to my comments, as that feature is not supported yet.
Caution
Do not close the pull request until the review is complete. Closing it early can lead to unexpected behavior and disrupt the review process.
Footnotes
src/splitInteger.test.js
Outdated
| expect(result).toEqual(result.slice().sort((a, b) => a - b)); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The existing tests are great for covering the general logic. However, the task requirements state that specific examples must be covered. Please add tests for the examples listed in the description file to meet all the requirements.
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
Great work adding all the required test cases! I am approving your solution as you've met all the core functional requirements. The tests you wrote correctly verify the behavior of the splitInteger function for all the examples from the task description.
As a suggestion for improvement, please review the descriptions for your tests in src/splitInteger.test.js. Several descriptions are swapped or misleading. For example, the test for splitInteger(6, 2) has a description that would be more appropriate for a test splitting a number into a single part.
While this isn't a blocker, clear and accurate test descriptions are crucial for making the test suite understandable and maintainable. Overall, excellent job on the implementation!
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
Footnotes
| test(`should split a number into equal parts | ||
| if a value is divisible by a numberOfParts`, () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This description seems to have been swapped with the next test's description. This test case, splitInteger(8, 1), is about splitting into a single part, which is what the description for the second test mentions.
| test(`should return a part equals to a value | ||
| when splitting into 1 part`, () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This description would be perfect for a test case like splitInteger(8, 1). For the current test, splitInteger(6, 2), the description from the first test (should split a number into equal parts...) would be more suitable.
| expect(result).toEqual(result.slice().sort((a, b) => a - b)); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| test('should add zeros if value < numberOfParts', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This description is misleading. For the test case splitInteger(32, 6), the value (32) is not less than numberOfParts (6), and the function doesn't add zeros. A more accurate description could be should correctly split the number when parts are not equal.
2 participants
No description provided.