-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 554
Gigasecond: Schema Compliance #679
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
Conversation
"some languages demonstrate the add function by inviting the", | ||
"solver to include their birthdate in either the solution code", | ||
"or test program. The test program then shows or tests their", | ||
"gigasecond anniversay." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
*anniversary
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah... saw that... not a compliance change though... so I left it. I guess it wouldn't hurt...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good! One small typo in "comments"
.
98e4ce9
to
614a9b5
Compare
"cases": [ | ||
{ | ||
"add": | ||
{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please don't merge it yet. It certainly isn't compliant!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Too late!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rbasso Shall I revert?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure if it is needed. We can add another commit soon.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is why we need #658
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm... yeah, I did check the travis-ci result, it was passing the local test... revert it, and let's see what I missed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This one was trick. It needed:
- Descriptions for each test case - ☑️
- Properties for each test case (I would have used
add
instead ofinteger
) ☑️ - Transforming the list of strings in the group
description
in a single string. ❌ (you did it, but you changed it to a comment. - Remove the
add
object. ❌
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done. please check #685
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I verified what happened locally, I did stash, changed my local $EXERCISE
value to review a different exercise, and verified it, merged it, grabbed the changes, went back to my branch, rebased it on master, unstashed my changes, forgot to reassign my exercise environment variable and then had it pass... of course...
So process error.
Remove leading 'x' from repository name
ref: #625