Skip to content

Conversation

@PatrickMcSweeny
Copy link
Contributor

@PatrickMcSweeny PatrickMcSweeny commented Jun 1, 2025

Closes #13
Closes #10

@PatrickMcSweeny PatrickMcSweeny requested a review from a team as a code owner June 1, 2025 16:23
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jun 1, 2025

Hello. Thanks for opening a PR on Exercism 🙂

We ask that all changes to Exercism are discussed on our Community Forum before being opened on GitHub. To enforce this, we automatically close all PRs that are submitted. That doesn't mean your PR is rejected but that we want the initial discussion about it to happen on our forum where a wide range of key contributors across the Exercism ecosystem can weigh in.

You can use this link to copy this into a new topic on the forum. If we decide the PR is appropriate, we'll reopen it and continue with it, so please don't delete your local branch.

If you're interested in learning more about this auto-responder, please read this blog post.


Note: If this PR has been pre-approved, please link back to this PR on the forum thread and a maintainer or staff member will reopen it.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this Jun 1, 2025
}
end

def approve_if_whitespace_is_sensible(msg = nil, params = {})
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed the bang operator from these methods when I moved them into the parent class because the ruby style guide defines the bang operator a way to identify a dangerous version of an equivalent method without the bang operator.

https://github.com/rubocop/ruby-style-guide?tab=readme-ov-file#relationship-between-safe-and-dangerous-methods

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you, and yes, exactly that. The ! on a method communicates that there is a safe method of that name as well, and it can be confusing when that is not the case.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On this same line (and just as a knee jerk reaction to this) the params probably is something that should not be used very often, as we do have keyword arguments. Having keyword arguments means that they get documented better, otherwise you have to go look to find out what the "parameters" might be that are valid.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is likely a concern for a different patch though.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's a lot that needs to be cleaned up, such as dead code and unused test files.

attr_reader :scores
def initialize(scores)
@scores = scores
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consider bring strict in our attribute use. It will let us know more directly if/when a mistake happens here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't follow. Could you be more specific?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's OK, more a reference to me later or if someone wants to set up attribute use as advice for the students.

@kotp
Copy link
Member

kotp commented Jun 1, 2025

@iHiD I do not have enough permission to reopen in this repository.

@PatrickMcSweeny
Copy link
Contributor Author

Could someone reopen this?

@kotp
Copy link
Member

kotp commented Jun 4, 2025

Could someone reopen this?

Give it a bit of time, Jeremy is extremely busy. This is not a priority PR.

@iHiD
Copy link
Member

iHiD commented Jun 17, 2025

Thanks. I can't reopen this as it was force pushed. It wil need to be recreated please.

@PatrickMcSweeny
Copy link
Contributor Author

PatrickMcSweeny commented Jun 17, 2025

I recreated it here

@kotp
Copy link
Member

kotp commented Jun 19, 2025

#111 and #112 are deprecated/superceded in favor of #113 but it might be nice to have a "superceded" or similar label so that the reason they are closed is apparent, when not brought in, and folks can know more immediately to not consider reopening.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add auto-approval for high scores Approvable solutions for High Scores

3 participants