-
-
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,45 +1,58 @@ | ||
| { | ||
| "#": [ | ||
| "The basic test is to add one gigasecond to a few ordinary dates.", | ||
| "Most test programs currently check only the date and ignore the time.", | ||
| "For languages with a native date-time type though, expected times", | ||
| "here show the correct seconds, ignoring leap seconds.", | ||
| "The date and time formats here are per", | ||
| "http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.9.1.15.", | ||
| "", | ||
| "Finally, as a demonstration but not really a test,", | ||
| "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." | ||
| ], | ||
| "add": { | ||
| "description": [ | ||
| "Add one gigasecond to the input." | ||
| ], | ||
| "cases": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "exercise": "gigasecond", | ||
| "version": "1.0.0", | ||
| "comments": [ | ||
| "The basic test is to add one gigasecond to a few ordinary dates.", | ||
| "Most test programs currently check only the date and ignore the time.", | ||
| "For languages with a native date-time type though, expected times", | ||
| "here show the correct seconds, ignoring leap seconds.", | ||
| "The date and time formats here are per", | ||
| "http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.9.1.15.", | ||
| "", | ||
| "Finally, as a demonstration but not really a test,", | ||
| "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 anniversary." | ||
| ], | ||
| "cases": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "add": | ||
| { | ||
| "comments": "Add one gigasecond to the input.", | ||
| "cases": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "description": "date only specification of time", | ||
| "property": "integer", | ||
| "input": "2011-04-25", | ||
| "expected": "2043-01-01T01:46:40" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "description": "second test for date only specification of time", | ||
| "property": "integer", | ||
| "input": "1977-06-13", | ||
| "expected": "2009-02-19T01:46:40" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "description": "third test for date only specification of time", | ||
| "property": "integer", | ||
| "input": "1959-07-19", | ||
| "expected": "1991-03-27T01:46:40" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "#": "full time specified", | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "description": "full time specified", | ||
| "property": "integer", | ||
| "input": "2015-01-24T22:00:00", | ||
| "expected": "2046-10-02T23:46:40" | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "#": "full time with day roll-over", | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "description": "full time with day roll-over", | ||
| "property": "integer", | ||
| "input": "2015-01-24T23:59:59", | ||
| "expected": "2046-10-03T01:46:39" | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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:
addinstead ofinteger) ☑️descriptionin a single string. ❌ (you did it, but you changed it to a comment.addobject. ❌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.
This link can be used to verify schema compliance until #658 is merged.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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
$EXERCISEvalue 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.