Repository navigation
add task solution - #1117
add task solution#1117DimaDamage91 wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
The test file requires two fixes before approval. First, a required test case is missing: splitInteger(32, 6) should be added with expected value [5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6] as explicitly specified in the task requirements. Second, the test on line 19 has an incorrect expected value - the test expects [0, 1, 1, 1, 1] for splitInteger(4, 5) but the correct expected value should be [0, 0, 1, 1, 1] to match the implementation's actual output. These corrections will ensure all required test cases are covered and existing tests pass with correct assertions.
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
Important
Fix the issues, commit the changes, and then re-request my review using the Re-request review button2 in the Reviewers tab.
Tip
If you have any comments about this review, please leave a message in the Add a comment section below and mention me with the @mateacademy-ai-mentor tag3.
I will read your message during my next review of your pull request. Please do not reply directly to my comments, as that feature is not supported yet.
Caution
Do not close the pull request until the review is complete. Closing it early can lead to unexpected behavior and disrupt the review process.
Footnotes
| test('should add zeros if value < numberOfParts', () => { | ||
| expect(splitInteger(4, 5)).toEqual([0, 1, 1, 1, 1]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The expected value [0, 1, 1, 1, 1] does not match what the implementation produces. Based on the algorithm, splitInteger(4, 5) returns [0, 0, 1, 1, 1], not [0, 1, 1, 1, 1].
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
All four required test cases for the splitInteger function are implemented correctly with proper assertions. The tests verify that the function returns arrays with the correct number of parts, proper min/max difference (≤1), and ascending order. There's a minor inconsistency where the fourth test description mentions "zeros if value < numberOfParts" but tests splitInteger(32, 6) where value > numberOfParts—this is cosmetic and doesn't affect the test logic or functionality. The implementation meets all checklist requirements and the test assertions are accurate.
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
No description provided.