fix(option1): Add test for prematurely passing exercise #198
Conversation
This file contains 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
Fixes the bug referenced in rust-lang#160, but does not address the larger feature work referenced by the issue.
komaeda
approved these changes
Jul 27, 2019
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit a750e4a has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 27, 2019
fix(option1): Add test for prematurely passing exercise Fixes the bug referenced in #160, but does not address the larger feature work referenced by the issue.
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-travis |
dylnuge
added a commit
to dylnuge/rustlings
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 18, 2019
This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to rust-lang#198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see rust-lang#127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 18, 2019
fix(primitive_types4): Fail on a slice covering the wrong area I noticed this issue and it seems like a similar one was raised/fixed in #160 this way. This is my first contribution to this repo (or any Rust project) so let me know if I messed up or need to fix anything! --- This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to #198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see #127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.
ppp3
pushed a commit
to ppp3/rustlings
that referenced
this pull request
May 23, 2022
…aeda fix(option1): Add test for prematurely passing exercise Fixes the bug referenced in rust-lang#160, but does not address the larger feature work referenced by the issue.
ppp3
pushed a commit
to ppp3/rustlings
that referenced
this pull request
May 23, 2022
This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to rust-lang#198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see rust-lang#127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.
ppp3
pushed a commit
to ppp3/rustlings
that referenced
this pull request
May 23, 2022
fix(primitive_types4): Fail on a slice covering the wrong area I noticed this issue and it seems like a similar one was raised/fixed in rust-lang#160 this way. This is my first contribution to this repo (or any Rust project) so let me know if I messed up or need to fix anything! --- This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to rust-lang#198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see rust-lang#127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.
dmoore04
pushed a commit
to dmoore04/rustlings
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2022
…aeda fix(option1): Add test for prematurely passing exercise Fixes the bug referenced in rust-lang#160, but does not address the larger feature work referenced by the issue.
dmoore04
pushed a commit
to dmoore04/rustlings
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2022
This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to rust-lang#198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see rust-lang#127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.
dmoore04
pushed a commit
to dmoore04/rustlings
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2022
fix(primitive_types4): Fail on a slice covering the wrong area I noticed this issue and it seems like a similar one was raised/fixed in rust-lang#160 this way. This is my first contribution to this repo (or any Rust project) so let me know if I messed up or need to fix anything! --- This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the slice given is equal to the expected slice. The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax. `rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not `run`), they do not output the `println`s at all. This fix is semantically similar to rust-lang#198. It does not take a stance on the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see rust-lang#127. There are likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Fixes the bug referenced in #160, but does not address the larger feature work referenced by the issue.