Add better test.

[wizzwizz4]

I wrote another test. This one's better than the existing one in several respects:

• It's a fifth of the length (18 v.s. 3).
• It's written entirely using descriptive variable names, including utility functions (excluding the one copied from Stack Overflow).
• It can test an arbitrary number of Fizz Buzz cases.
• It's entirely hand-written; no copying and pasting to be found (excluding from Stack Overflow).
• Variable names make it clear where the values come from.
• It favours conciseness over needless padding of line numbers; you get what you pay for.
• It uses primitives wherever possible to save memory.
• It favours clarity over conciseness; no one-letter variable names here (except from Stack Overflow).
• It's consistent with previously-defined programming standards.
• It's backwards-compatible.
• I made sure to use the latest in programming techniques.
• It's easy to follow, if you're a good, talented programmer.
• It's platform-agnostic.

The addition of this test ensures that no cheating has occurred in the implementation of FizzBuzz. It hasn't so far (as demonstrated by the fact that this test succeeds) but might do in future; this will catch it when it's introduced, identify where it's introduced and identify the source of its introduction so you know who's responsible.

[emiln]

As a company we are deeply grateful for the many open source contributions we're receiving, but we can no longer in good faith support merge requests into the problematically named master branch, which has been removed.

Instead we hope that you will reopen your merge request and target the new default branch, artisanally crafted by our Swedish Inclusivity Consultant, called uinverse. You can read more about the inclusivity success story in the issue.