Add solution for Challenge 3 by yz4230

[yz4230]

Challenge 3 Solution

Submitted by: @yz4230
Challenge: Challenge 3

Description

This PR contains my solution for Challenge 3.

Changes

• Added solution file to challenge-3/submissions/yz4230/solution-template.go

Testing

• Solution passes all test cases
• Code follows Go best practices

Thank you for reviewing my submission! 🚀

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This PR adds a template solution for challenge-3 implementing Go structures for employee management. The solution defines an Employee struct, a Manager struct with employee collection, and public methods to add/remove employees, calculate average salary, and retrieve employees by ID. A main function demonstrates basic usage.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Challenge-3 Template Solution challenge-3/submissions/yz4230/solution-template.go	Introduces Employee and Manager types with CRUD operations: AddEmployee appends to slice; RemoveEmployee filters by ID; GetAverageSalary iterates for mean calculation; FindEmployeeByID returns pointer to matching employee. Includes main function demonstrating add, remove, average computation, and search operations.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

• Basic slice manipulation and iteration patterns
• No error handling logic to validate
• Straightforward struct definitions with standard Go conventions
• Simple pointer receiver methods with predictable behavior

Possibly related PRs

• Add solution for Challenge 2 by AlexandrZlnov #620: Adds identical Employee and Manager types with the same public methods (AddEmployee, RemoveEmployee, GetAverageSalary, FindEmployeeByID) to challenge-3.
• Add solution for Challenge 3 by AlexO-85 #684: Implements the same Employee and Manager structures with identical methods and nearly identical main function usage.
• Add solution for Challenge 3 by Kosench #561: Introduces equivalent Employee and Manager types and implements the same methods with identical behavior patterns.

Pre-merge checks

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and accurately summarizes the main change: adding a solution for Challenge 3 by the contributor yz4230.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is directly related to the changeset, explaining that it contains a Challenge 3 solution submission with the solution file location and testing validation.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

challenge-3/submissions/yz4230/solution-template.go (1)

22-37: Consider simplifying the removal logic.

The current implementation works correctly but is verbose. Go has a more idiomatic pattern for removing elements from slices.

Apply this diff for a more concise and idiomatic implementation:

 func (m *Manager) RemoveEmployee(id int) {
-    idx := -1
+	idx := -1
 	for i, e := range m.Employees {
-	    if e.ID == id {
-	        idx = i
-	        break
-	    }
+		if e.ID == id {
+			idx = i
+			break
+		}
 	}
 	if idx == -1 {
-	    return
+		return
 	}
-	next := make([]Employee, 0, len(m.Employees)-1)
-	next = append(next, m.Employees[:idx]...)
-	next = append(next, m.Employees[idx+1:]...)
-	m.Employees = next
+	m.Employees = append(m.Employees[:idx], m.Employees[idx+1:]...)
 }

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9b711a4 and 332a988.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• challenge-3/submissions/yz4230/solution-template.go (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (4)

challenge-3/submissions/yz4230/solution-template.go (4)

5-10: LGTM! Well-structured Employee type.

The Employee struct is clean and contains appropriate fields for the challenge requirements.

---

12-14: LGTM! Clean Manager structure.

The Manager struct appropriately encapsulates the employee collection.

---

16-19: LGTM! Straightforward implementation.

The AddEmployee method correctly appends to the slice.

---

39-49: LGTM! Correct average calculation with proper edge case handling.

The method correctly handles the empty employee list and computes the average accurately.

[coderabbitai]

⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major

Returning pointer to slice element creates potential dangling pointer issue.

Returning a pointer to a slice element (&m.Employees[i]) is risky because:

• If the slice is later modified (e.g., via RemoveEmployee or if AddEmployee triggers reallocation), the returned pointer may become invalid or point to incorrect data.
• This is a common Go pitfall that can lead to subtle, hard-to-debug issues.

Consider returning by value or making a copy instead.

Apply this diff to return by value with a found indicator:

-// FindEmployeeByID finds and returns an employee by their ID.
-func (m *Manager) FindEmployeeByID(id int) *Employee {
+// FindEmployeeByID finds and returns an employee by their ID.
+// Returns the employee and true if found, zero value and false otherwise.
+func (m *Manager) FindEmployeeByID(id int) (Employee, bool) {
 	for i := range m.Employees {
-	    if m.Employees[i].ID == id {
-	        return &m.Employees[i]
-	    }
+		if m.Employees[i].ID == id {
+			return m.Employees[i], true
+		}
 	}
-	return nil
+	return Employee{}, false
 }

Then update the caller in main:

-	employee := manager.FindEmployeeByID(2)
+	employee, found := manager.FindEmployeeByID(2)
 
 	fmt.Printf("Average Salary: %f\n", averageSalary)
-	if employee != nil {
-		fmt.Printf("Employee found: %+v\n", *employee)
+	if found {
+		fmt.Printf("Employee found: %+v\n", employee)
 	}

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

In challenge-3/submissions/yz4230/solution-template.go around lines 51 to 59,
the function currently returns a pointer to a slice element which can become
invalid if the slice is modified; change the function to return the Employee by
value plus a boolean found flag (e.g., (Employee, bool)), iterate to find the
match and return a copy of the employee and true, and return the zero-value
Employee and false when not found; then update all call sites (e.g., in main) to
handle the two-value return, check the boolean before using the Employee, and
avoid storing or relying on pointers to slice elements.