Split Integer Test Solution#1020
Conversation
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
Decision: Approve — the implementation and tests work and meet the core functionality requirements.
Your splitInteger implementation behaves correctly, and the current tests verify key scenarios (equal split, single-part, ordering for a non-trivial case, and a value < parts case). There are no critical blockers: functionality is intact and tests are valid. For further strengthening, consider adding explicit property assertions (length equals numberOfParts, sum equals value, and max - min <= 1) and include the missing example splitInteger(32, 6) to mirror the description. For broader coverage of zeros, splitInteger(2, 5) would be a good addition. Minor style note: in .eslintrc.js, replacing the numeric severity 0 with 'off' for no-proto improves readability. Nicely done overall — clear code and thoughtful tests; the suggested additions will make the suite even more robust.
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
Footnotes
| 'no-proto': 0, | ||
| strict: 0, | ||
| 'max-len': 0, | ||
| 'no-proto': 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The rule entry uses a numeric severity (0). ESLint accepts numeric severities, but consider using the equivalent string ('off') for clarity and readability, e.g.:
'no-proto': 'off'This is a low-severity readability suggestion — functionality is unchanged if you keep 0.
| test(`should split a number into equal parts | ||
| if a value is divisible by a numberOfParts`, () => { | ||
|
|
||
| expect(splitInteger(6,2)).toEqual([3,3]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good assertion: this verifies the equal-split case when the value is divisible by numberOfParts. Consider adding the other example from the description (splitInteger(32, 6)) to ensure the tests include all provided examples. This would make tests mirror the description examples exactly.
| test(`should return a part equals to a value | ||
| when splitting into 1 part`, () => { | ||
|
|
||
| expect(splitInteger(6,1)).toEqual([6]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This correctly tests splitting into a single part. As a minor improvement, you could also add the splitInteger(8, 1) example shown in the description to increase coverage of provided examples.
|
|
||
| test('should sort parts ascending if they are not equal', () => { | ||
|
|
||
| expect(splitInteger(17,4)).toEqual([4,4,4,5]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This assertion checks ascending order and the max-min difference property for a non-trivial case — good. You could complement this with a property-style test that asserts length, sum, sorted order, and max-min <= 1 for several inputs to catch regression bugs more reliably.
|
|
||
| test('should add zeros if value < numberOfParts', () => { | ||
|
|
||
| expect(splitInteger(1,2)).toEqual([0,1]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This correctly tests the value < numberOfParts scenario for a simple case. Consider adding a case where multiple zeros occur (for example, splitInteger(2, 5) should yield [0,0,0,1,1]) to verify correct distribution when many parts are larger than the value.
2 participants
No description provided.