Solution

[Nicholasscientist]

No description provided.

[mateacademy-ai-mentor]

Review Summary

Your implementation correctly fulfills all functional requirements. The cache decorator properly stores and retrieves function results, handles varying arguments, prints the correct cache hit/miss messages, and maintains separate cache storage for each decorated function. The only issue flagged is a minor PEP8 style violation (E306) at line 7 - missing a blank line before a nested definition. While this doesn't affect functionality, your linter is configured to enforce this style rule. Simply add a blank line before the nested definition to satisfy PEP8 guidelines. All checklist requirements are met, so this is approved with the expectation that you'll address the linting issue.

---

✨ 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

1. Rate AI review example ↩

2. Re-request AI review example ↩

3. Add AI review comments example ↩

[mateacademy-ai-mentor]

Review Summary

Your cache decorator implementation is functionally complete and correct, properly handling all requirements including caching logic, multiple decorated functions, and appropriate message output. The PEP8 style violations (E306 and E304) mentioned in the check logs are minor formatting issues that do not affect functionality—they are cosmetic/linting matters that don't prevent task completion. Your code meets all functional requirements from the task description, so this submission is approved. For future reference, ensure exactly one blank line before nested function definitions (like your inner function) and no blank lines between a decorator and the decorated function to avoid these style warnings.

---

✨ 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

1. Rate AI review example ↩

2. Re-request AI review example ↩

3. Add AI review comments example ↩

[mateacademy-ai-mentor]

Review Summary

Your cache decorator implementation is approved! The code correctly handles all core requirements: storing results keyed by arguments, maintaining separate caches for multiple decorated functions using closures, and printing the required messages. Your use of *args, **kwargs for flexible argument handling and functools.wraps for preserving function metadata shows good Python practices. There are only minor PEP8 style warnings (blank line formatting around the inner function definition) that don't affect functionality. These are common style preferences that you can refine over time as you continue learning. Great work on a clean, working solution! Your implementation demonstrates solid understanding of decorators and closure concepts. Keep building on this foundation!

---

✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center¹. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨

Footnotes

1. Rate AI review example ↩