Conversation
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
This requires a few changes as a key test case doesn't correctly validate the function's output. You've done a great job setting up the test suite and covering several scenarios, but there's a critical issue in your test for splitInteger(17, 4).
Currently, the test only verifies that the output array is sorted, but it doesn't check if the values themselves are correct. This means an incorrect implementation returning a sorted array like [1, 2, 3, 11] would still pass. To fix this, you should assert against the exact expected output:
expect(splitInteger(17, 4)).toEqual([4, 4, 4, 5]);This single assertion validates the values, their order, and the array length all at once. Also, please add the missing test case for splitInteger(32, 6) from the task description to ensure full coverage. These changes will make your tests much more reliable!
✨ 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Outdated
| const result = splitInteger(17, 4); | ||
| const sorted = [...result].sort((a, b) => a - b); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(result).toEqual(sorted); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test correctly verifies that the output array is sorted, but it doesn't check if the function produced the correct parts. For example, if the function returned [1, 2, 3, 11] for this input, the test would still pass. A more robust approach is to assert against the expected output directly: expect(splitInteger(17, 4)).toEqual([4, 4, 4, 5]);. This validates the values, sorting, and length all at once. Consider adding a test case for splitInteger(32, 6) from the description as well.
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
Excellent work on this revision! I'm happy to approve your solution. You've successfully addressed all the previous feedback by correcting the test cases to validate against the exact expected arrays. It's also great to see you've added the missing test for splitInteger(32, 6). Your test suite is now robust and fully covers all the requirements. Well done!
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
Footnotes
2 participants
No description provided.