exercises(grains): assert, rather than returning error union #336
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I think that returning an error union here isn't particularly interesting. I think most of the exercises that currently contain (or previously contained) a single-item error set are better if the relevant functions return an optional, or say that it is the caller's responsibility to do input validation.
This PR is a follow-up to 290e7f3, which removed the negative input test case.
Note that we should be able to add the "bad input" tests again in the future - Zig plans to give
std.testingthe ability to expect a panic.Merging this PR will break everybody's solution.
Refs: #229
Similar to #335
To-do:
.appendfile that explains how toassert