Improve test inputs for 'binary' #95
Comments
This adds some additional test cases to clarify the behavior around the conversion of valid/invalid binary input. See exercism/problem-specifications#95
|
Can Ruby be check-marked complete due to exercism/ruby#171 |
|
Done. |
|
Consistency as noted in exercism/ruby/issues/174 should be addressed. How many of these invalid are exception based, rather than 0 based? |
|
I'm not sure--but I'd like to just change the README to allow for both approaches. |
|
You beat me to it. :) |
…em-specifications#95 This expands the JavaScript test for the 'binary' exercise to include the same examples as the Ruby equivalent. The example solution has also been updated so it passes the new tests.
…em-specifications#95 This expands the JavaScript test for the 'binary' exercise to include the same examples as the Ruby equivalent. The example solution has also been updated so it passes the new tests.
…em-specifications#95 This expands the JavaScript test for the 'binary' exercise to include the same examples as the Ruby equivalent. The example solution has also been updated so it passes the new tests.
This is according to exercism/problem-specifications#95 Since I'm only on mobile I need to have travis do the test run for me.
|
I've just stumbled over a solution in the elixir track which would "convert" the string "22" to |
|
Ah, yes, that's a good catch. |
|
I'd be very happy if we get some common test data before fixing this issue. Fixing it now per track and collecting common test data afterwards and then file an issue per track again might create additional and unnecessary noise in the tracks repositories and additional confusion on commenting submissions that are against different versions of the tests. |
|
Since we are in the process of deprecating |
|
Yeah, I think we can. Thanks! |
In exercism/exercism#2425
@odeits suggests adding the edge case
"10convert01". We could also split it up into10convertandconvert10.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: