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

Tweak pangram tests per canonical-data #153

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Tweak pangram tests per canonical-data #153

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

kytrinyx
Copy link
Member

This removes an include=false from the tests.toml, as the
exclusion seems to have been unintentional (the new test
passes with no changes to the example solution).

It also switches to use the should.be_false / should.be_true style
that other tests use, rather than assert False / assert True.

Copy link
Contributor

@jiegillet jiegillet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice! Only one thing I would revert.

}

pub fn a_m_and_upper_a_m_are_26_different_characters_but_not_a_pangram_test() {
pub fn a_m_and_a_m_are_26_different_characters_but_not_a_pangram_test() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think the previous title was better, lost in generation I suppose

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hm, yeah you're right, they get lost in the generation. I'm going to see if I can improve the test title upstream and regenerate.

Copy link
Member

@lpil lpil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice! Could you revert the should.be_true be changes please? It produces a worse error that does not include the location of the assertion.

@kytrinyx kytrinyx marked this pull request as draft January 23, 2023 12:45
@kytrinyx
Copy link
Member Author

I took another look at this and the include=false should actually be present, because it's been reimplemented with a different description and different (but equivalent) data.

I'm going to put this one on hold while I look at the upstream fix.

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.

3 participants