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

Revert "Done missing numbers challenge and its test file" #47

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 8, 2025

Conversation

Tbaosman
Copy link

@Tbaosman Tbaosman commented Jan 8, 2025


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 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 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

@Tbaosman Tbaosman added the bug Something isn't working label Jan 8, 2025
@Tbaosman Tbaosman merged commit f5aafdf into main Jan 8, 2025
10 checks passed
@Tbaosman Tbaosman deleted the revert-44-missing-numbers branch January 12, 2025 14:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants