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

Doomsday Algorithm: Fix leap year check #12396

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

minh-swinburne
Copy link

@minh-swinburne minh-swinburne commented Nov 24, 2024

Replace != in (year % 400) != 0 (line 49) with ==

Justification: Years that are divisible by 100 (centurian == 100) but not by 400 (year % 400 != 0) are skipped and NOT leap year.

Describe your change:

  • Add an algorithm?
  • Fix a bug or typo in an existing algorithm?
  • Add or change doctests? -- Note: Please avoid changing both code and tests in a single pull request.
  • Documentation change?

Checklist:

  • I have read CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • This pull request is all my own work -- I have not plagiarized.
  • I know that pull requests will not be merged if they fail the automated tests.
  • This PR only changes one algorithm file. To ease review, please open separate PRs for separate algorithms.
  • All new Python files are placed inside an existing directory.
  • All filenames are in all lowercase characters with no spaces or dashes.
  • All functions and variable names follow Python naming conventions.
  • All function parameters and return values are annotated with Python type hints.
  • All functions have doctests that pass the automated testing.
  • All new algorithms include at least one URL that points to Wikipedia or another similar explanation.
  • If this pull request resolves one or more open issues then the description above includes the issue number(s) with a closing keyword: "Fixes #ISSUE-NUMBER".

Replace `!=` in `(year % 400) != 0` (line 49) with `==`

Justification: Years that are divisible by 100 (centurian == 100) but not by 400 (year % 400 != 0) are skipped and NOT leap year.
@algorithms-keeper algorithms-keeper bot added the tests are failing Do not merge until tests pass label Nov 24, 2024
@minh-swinburne minh-swinburne changed the title Fix leap year check Doomsday Algorithm: Fix leap year check Nov 24, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@imSanko imSanko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Parenthesize a and b expressions when chaining and and or together, to make the precedence clear

@algorithms-keeper algorithms-keeper bot removed the tests are failing Do not merge until tests pass label Dec 1, 2024
Correct the parentheses to make clear the precedence of the conditional check
@algorithms-keeper algorithms-keeper bot added the awaiting reviews This PR is ready to be reviewed label Dec 1, 2024
Copy link
Author

@minh-swinburne minh-swinburne left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've changed the incorrect conditional operator and ensure clarity using parentheses

@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ def get_week_day(year: int, month: int, day: int) -> str:
) % 7
day_anchor = (
DOOMSDAY_NOT_LEAP[month - 1]
if (year % 4 != 0) or (centurian == 0 and (year % 400) == 0)
if (year % 4 != 0) or ((centurian == 0) and (year % 400 != 0))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
if (year % 4 != 0) or ((centurian == 0) and (year % 400 != 0))
if year % 4 != 0 or (centurian == 0 and year % 400 != 0)

I believe some of the parentheses are unnecessary, order of operations should still be clear due to the higher precedence of %, ==, and !=.

@tianyizheng02 tianyizheng02 added awaiting changes A maintainer has requested changes to this PR and removed awaiting reviews This PR is ready to be reviewed labels Dec 31, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
awaiting changes A maintainer has requested changes to this PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants