The LeetCode problem number is not the same as LeetHub-2.0

[tzjsw]

The LeetCode problem number is not the same as LeetHub-2.0

Describe the bug
It seems that LeetCode problem number generated by LeetHub-3.0 is not the same as LeetHub-2.0. For example, when I use LeetHub-2.0 with old UI of LeetCode, I got the correct problem number for the following problems: 1004-max-consecutive-ones-iii and 1234-replace-the-substring-for-balanced-string. But when I use LeetHub-3.0 with new UI of LeetCode, I got the incorrect problem number: 1046-max-consecutive-ones-iii and 1351-replace-the-substring-for-balanced-string.

For problems with small numbers, it seems that LeetHub-3.0 works fine.

Screenshots

[raphaelheinz]

Thanks for reporting this issue! Unfortunately, I probably won't have much free time until next weekend. Then I can check.

@aystream Has this issue maybe been introduced with #1?

[aystream]

No, I don't think it worked, in fact there was the same error there arunbhardwaj/LeetHub-2.0#41 .The id is taken from the id api, not the one that is there. But this is my assumption, I don't have time to look at it yet.

[raphaelheinz]

@aystream You are right. Thanks for your feedback. It is not an issue that was introduced with LeetHub-3.0. After checking my private leetcode-solution repo, I can confirm that this issue also occurred with Leetcode-2.0 using the new Leetcode UI.

The issue is due to Leetcode returns a wrong problem id. I found that the returned problem id from problem 1-741 is correct. From problem 743 onwards there are inconsistencies.

Btw we can access the problem id in various ways. One possibility is to read the graphql query. Another way is to read the local Chrome cache value. Please take a look at the screenshot below. We can see that the id for problem 743 is stored incorrectly (stored as 744).

So this is a general leetcode problem over which we have no influence on client side. I think an idea to bypass this issue would be to parse the title and extract the id from there...But this is not a critical issue.

[raphaelheinz]

Closing this as fixed in #6