Add new practice exercise: state-of-tic-tac-toe

[andrerfcsantos]

Getting Started

This task requires the implementation of a new practice exercise. If you have not yet contributed to concept exercises before, this task requires some upfront reading to acquire the necessary background knowledge.

Here you can read about what Concept Exercises are and how they are structured:

• What are Practice Exercises?
• Anatomy of a Practice Exercise

Also, be aware of these general guidelines:

• Exercism Markdown Specification
• Exercism Formatting and Style Guide

Problem Specifications

The description and test cases for all practice exercises are taken from the problem specifications repository.

• Problem specifications PR - This is the PR in problem specifications that created this exercise. Use it to read more about the decisions taken about the exercise.
• Problem specifications exercise directory - This folder contains the description and test cases you must have for the exercise.

For more information on how to use the information from problem specifications when building the exercise, check Anatomy of a Practice Exercise.

How to proceed

1. First accept this issue by saying "I'd like to work on this". After posting that, feel free to start working on the issue right away. A maintainer will later assign put you as an assignee on the issue, but you don't have to wait for that to work on the issue.
2. Use this issue to discuss any questions you have, what should be included in the content and shouldn't, and to collect more reference material.
3. Create a PR and set "exercism/go" as reviewers. Additionally, you can write in #maintaining-go on Slack that your PR is ready for review. Once you incorporated any critical feedback that the reviewer might give you and the PR is approved, it will be merged by a maintainer.

[AbhilashJN]

I'd like to work on this

[AbhilashJN]

In the canonical data for this problem specification, there are two tests with the same input, but expect different outputs (lines 367 and 382 in canonical-data.json). Should one of the tests be removed?

[andrerfcsantos]

@AbhilashJN Assigned the issue to you, thanks a lot for the interest in collaborating.

In the canonical data for this problem specification, there are two tests with the same input, but expect different outputs (lines 367 and 382 in canonical-data.json). Should one of the tests be removed?

The test on line 382 as the key "reimplements", which means that it is the one that must be considered since it supersedes the other one. In that particular test, the "reimplements" seems to reference its own id, instead of the ID it supersedes. I believe this is an error, but I'll try to confirm. In any case, use the test that has the "reimplements" key.

One note is that if you also want to write a test generator for the exercise the test generator doesn't yet support the "reimplements" keyword. Feel free to implement the generator for the exercise regardless, but just be aware of this limitation. Related issue: #2055

Let us know if you need any help or get stuck.

[AbhilashJN]

Hey, I have implemented a way to generate the tests based on the toml file, and also implemented a generator for this exercise, so the problem should be solved hopefully. But I need to import a third party package in the gen package. Since there is no main go module specified, how do you recommend importing the package?

[andrerfcsantos]

@AbhilashJN See Generating Test Cases

[AbhilashJN]

I have already written the generator. I have also written a function in gen/gen.go which can remove tests based on the condition. The only problem is that to read the toml file I need to import a third party package in gen/gen.go

[andrerfcsantos]

Ah, got it, sorry I misunderstood your question.

Today @eklatzer also posted the same question here #2055 (comment). It might be worth for you to take a look at that issue, as it seems that what you did could also be useful for that issue there. About the question, let me think a bit about this and run some tests and I'll get back to both of you - this is something new that might require a bit of restructuring of the test generator.

[junedev]

@AbhilashJN Please see #2055 (comment). If you think your solution covers what is needed to solve the issue (incl. considering the nested cases statements that can appear), it would be great if you could create a (draft) PR with only those changes for the generator (not the new exercise). Then either you can finish up #2055 or @eklatzer can use your work as a starting point. Leave a note in #2055 what you would prefer.

The comment I linked also explains what to do about the external dependency needed for the toml parsing.