jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
If there is anything in particular I need to work on, then I will take you up on this. Thanks
Just to confirm: it seems like it's some weird problem with Shaun's fork. It's worth trying my fork , but I suspect it'll just work when you use my link.
Worst case you would need to delete and recreate your fork and PRs, which is going to be a pain.
Strangely, his fork doesn't work locally also.
After all of that, pointed out the issue - Gatsby had enrolled me into their super secret testing club, and the development server-side rendering broke the build. Is it worth it me opening a PR with the change to prevent this? Or, am I really just that lucky?
Well, congrats on being the secret list that you never subscribed to (I hope?)!! Please make a PR to make sure no else gets on the exclusive club list and is surprised. We wasted so much time for no reason. Lolz.
Sorry this has been breaking you. This error line: comes from This generally works as most people run from the root of their site so equals the root of their site. I'm not sure what your setup is but I'm guessing you're starting the dev server differently? This isn't what we normally do — we have a more robust way to get the public directory that's not being used here that I'll switch this too which should unstick you.
Hey Thanks for getting back to us. You are correct we do have a non-common setup. We essentially use in parallel mode for spinning our API and the client (Gatsby) apps. Even within the client, we need to do a pre-Gatsby develop step. We package a few things (with Webpack) to for one of our client-side runtimes before bringing up Gatsby to start the dev server the normal way. Anyways while we do not understand the internals of Gatsby for this particular feature yet owing to time (BTW, Gatsby 3.x is fast, congrats to the team on shipping it! ), we understand that turning off the flag did resolve the issue. We will be happy to troubleshoot if you point us to some documentation about the "discovery" process for the public directory in your comment. Thanks again.
Thanks for confirming the issue!
I'm a new contributor to this project and have run into a few confusing points on that I'd like to clarify for other new contributors. .io - From a few other contributors, I've been told this is no longer used. I'd suggest removing this from the contributor's guide. npm dependencies. This project has a dependency to which is confusing to set up for new NodeJs developers. I'd propose to mention this link to get new Node developers started, especially for Windows, since it involves some unusual installations like Visual Studio for the C++ compiler. isn't any mention of running tests before submitting a pull request. This is something that could be easily missed and cause a pull request to fail the TravisCI build. I've learned that one pre-test dependency, JSONLint, doesn't work for the Windows filesystem. As a workaround, I'd suggest all contributors on Windows to run the tests directly by skipping the pre-test lint run. An additional step could be to manually run JSONLint on individual files, without using the problem-causing wildcard *. For non-Windows contributors, it should be mandatory to run before a pull request.
These all sound like reasonable changes. Go ahead and get a PR going for it.
I'll get started on it.
When working with the , it mentions the following instructions to complete the challenge: And that's alright, but when running the following correct solution, it doesn't pass and throws the following error: The current test error that it throws is misleading and it's happening because there's a missing test for the above code, which is expecting an implicit return. A test should be to let the user know that an implicit return is expected and can reach to the expected solution: Updating the challenge instruction would be appreciated too. On the other hand, there's a similar case where a correct test is running. When executing the following solution, this happens: This is tested using the following test: ! Device: Laptop OS: macOS 13.6.6 Browser: Chrome Version: 123 No response
Hi that makes sense: regarding the challenge text I would modify it as it follows: What do you think about it? Talking about code that’s right, we should add a test for the listed case in order to fix this. If updated text is ok I’ll proceed adding missing test.
Hey how about being more specific like other the other challenges? Something like the following: And the test error text should be the same when the condition is not met: That's my opinion, ofc. Appreciate that you ask. When able, please submit the PR and let's see what the maintainers think
Hi and I've submitted a PR using juan suggestion about instructions; then I a test assertion just to give explicit error on implicit return. Supravisor PR just fixed text instructions but not a test, so I did it.
"Bash a script" should be "a Bash script" This looks like something that can be fixed by "first-time" code contributors to this repository. The files you need to fix are the two above. Please make sure you read our , we prioritize contributors following the instructions in our guides. Join us in our or our if you need help contributing; our moderators will guide you through this. Sometimes we may get more than one pull request. We typically accept the most quality contribution followed by the one that is made first. Happy contributing.
There is an option being displayed as a code block, rather than inline code like its siblings: <details<summaryScreenshot</summary! </detailsMake the following change: js --- (); --- ();` To
This issue is open to first-time code contributors to this repository. The file that you should be updating is linked in the original post. We typically do not assign issues. Instead, we accept the most quality contribution followed by the one that is made first. Please make sure you read our as well as our , we prioritize contributors following the instructions in our guides. Join us in our or our if you need help contributing; our moderators will guide you through this. Happy contributing.
I'm limiting comments in this issue to reduce noise. If you're interested in contributing, everything you need is provided in the thread.
In the 5 certification projects for the Data Visualization certificate, the phrase "(non-virtual) DOM elements" is used without any prior explanation (I checked the Data Visualization curriculum and no such phrase was introduced at any point). It is not clear therefore to the learner what the requirement "Required (non-virtual) DOM elements are queried on the moment of each test." could actually mean. Now, maybe it means "actual DOM' vs "virtual DOM" from the React curriculum. But requiring that a priori knowledge to understand a Data Visualization project requirement seems like overkill? I propose that this requirement in all 5 projects be stated simply as "Required DOM elements..." The chance of someone not understanding that we mean 'actual DOM elements' seems miniscule to me in the context of these challenges, but I'm not a web developer, so if there is a valid reason to use the term 'non-virtual DOM elements', it would be very interesting for me to learn/hear of it. ps. should this issue be accepted, please also fix the phrasing "on the moment" to be "at the moment" which I believe is what was actually meant. update all 5 certification project statements referring to (non-virtual) DOM elements as per the above discussion. No response N/A No response
I think this is more of a note for advanced campers, similar to mentioning that the tests might not work with a framework like Vue.
Yes I think so too, but it is too confusing to someone who is not that advanced. If we didn't say it, what is the chance an advanced camper will run into a problem?
It likely wouldn't - though I also haven't seen much mention of beginners who do have confusion.
I agree that I haven't seen questions on this either but since the rule-of-thumb is to not include undefined technical terms in the challenges and projects, we should do something about this one. (Either define it or drop it)
Thanks for opening this issue. This looks like something that can be fixed by "first-time" code contributors to this repository. Here are the files that you should be looking at to work on a fix: List of files: In these files, the text should be updated to . Please make sure you read our , we prioritize contributors following the instructions in our guides.
In RTL, these texts will be broken, because they are a mix of special character, numbers, which follow different direction in RTL than LTR. ~1.2.13 1.2.x 1.x.x To fix these, add code elements around the version number. File: change to there are multiple instances in these files All of them should be wrapped in code elements Speaking of weird interactions. Using special characters that relay on direction will break in RTL, because it will be reverted, in example. will be we can wrap in
I want to contribute towards this issue. Can you assign this issue to me.
The first comprehensive PR created will be reviewed and merged. We typically do not assign issues to anyone other than long-time contributors. If you would like to contribute, and have not read the contributors docs, please do so here: If you have any issues with contributing, be sure to join us on the , or on the
Some users can claim python, new QA, and new infosec certifications without submitting their required projects on .dev. It seems the api does not find the cert challenge and proceeds by setting the related cert flag on the user object to true. The issue can be resolved by reseeding the db locally. I cannot reproduce this issue at the moment, but I will keep this open in case other users are experiencing the same issue.
Hello! I tested this issue, and I was able to claim the certifications without completing the projects.
could you check if you can see the certification after claiming it? I'm just wondering if this is purely a client-side issue.
I am able to see the four certificates I could claim, yes.
Thanks for checking that. In that case, while it seems likely that it will fine if the database is migrated, the api should definitely default to rejecting certifications it does recognise.
Yes We Can Claim Python Certification Without submitting the Projects.
that's really serious
Currently when you complete/claim a certificate there's an entry on the timeline: <img width="582" alt="Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9 37 55 AM" src="https://user-"This doesn't seem to be working for the new Scientific Computing with Python, Data Analysis with Python, and Machine Learning with Python certificates.
I'm a new contributor but I'd like to help out on this.
I think this is mostly working. You just need to refresh the page before it shows up... <img width="598" alt="Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 11 34 12 AM" src="https://user-"Edit: hmm, it seems to be working locally, but not on .dev - the "view cert" button is there in both environments - it just doesn't show on the timeline on .dev
Ah, interesting. This does seem to work locally but not on .dev for some reason.
This may be a one off issue related to where the new/split certificates (Quality Assurance, Information Security, Scientific Computing with Python, Data Analysis with Python, and Machine Learning with Python) were not seeded to the .dev database for some reason. I can confirm this is working locally like mentioned above. thank you for your interest in contributing. Please check out issues with the label for other things we need help with.
<!-- NOTE: If you're reporting a security issue, don't create a GitHub issue. Instead, email We will look into it immediately. --1) The Full Stack Cert claimed date will only show as the current date and not the date it was claimed on. I claimed mine on the 7th of September and checking back regularly I noticed the claimed on date was always the current date. 2) The Full Stack Cert appears as the Legacy Full Stack Cert on a users profile page, clicking this leads to an error as the legacy cert does not exist. It should be in with the new certificates. That being said, on the settings page the link to view the certificate is linked correctly. ${username-here} /full-stack ${username-here} N.A 1) Just the claimed on date. No screenshot necessary. 2) !
Similar to
I am having the same issue with my Full Stack Certificate
Mine as well. Has this been addressed?
Same here - The issued date shows the current date and not the date on which it was originally issued -
Related
Have the same problem: the date of Full Stack Certificate is always a current date.
If there are no records for a fullstack certificate, a good fallback would be going thought the date of the modern certificates and displaying the date of latest claimed certificate.
optimally, we should add a completion timestamp and an id when campers claim a fullstack certificate with a fallback to the last earned cert if a timestamp is not found.
My full stack certification also updates with the current date not the claimed date.
The date on my full stack certificate is showing the date i claim my Responsive Web design certificate ( the first certificate ). and now if i want to see the certificate it is asking me to claim certificate when i claim it will say is like u have claim the certificate and it will not show me the certificate.
This is an ongoing issue, please use the reactions instead to assert "me too". Potential approach for fixes: and
Also related to the Full Stack cert – the date seems to be the date the first certification was claimed, not the date the full stack certification was claimed:
The fallback is not working properly and I should have caught that. It's not a tricky fix, but I'll make sure it works this time!
Ok thenks On May 5, 2020 11:04, "Oliver Eyton-Williams" <:
Since newItem, which references an array should be to the original array (per the instructions), I expected to pass the test. Instead it says "nonMutatingPush([1, 2, 3], [4, 5]) should return [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].", which would be concatenating the two arrays, but it isn't a non mutating alternative to as the instructions suggest. <img width="1437" alt="fcc-challenge" src="https://user-"<!-- Please complete the following information. --- Device: [laptop] OS: [macOS] Browser: [chrome] <!-- Add any other context about the problem here. --
the function should return (newItem). You put the newItem in an array literal, due to which the test is failing.
I see what you are saying. Really, the challenge is asking you to replicate the effect of using push with the spread operator. I'm not sure what change to the wording would make this clearer. Do you have any suggestions?
it also fails without literal syntax, e.g.: I know that it will pass when I write but this is the problem, because the instructions say: would result in arr having the value . So i suppose a function named "nonMutatingPush" should have a similar effect as push namely creating a "two dimensional"-Array in this case, like in the example in the instructions, and not do something entirely different (ie. merging the content of the two arrays into a new array)
The challenge doesn't say anything about using a spread operator, instead it asks users to "Change the nonMutatingPush function so it uses concat to add newItem to the end of original instead of push". Pushing an array to an array would produce an array in an array. Since "The concat() method is used to merge two or more arrays" () to replicate the effect of push one needs to put the array about to be "pushed" into a new array, so the outer array gets merged and the inner array stays intact. My suggestion would be, if replicating the push behaviour isn't the case, but merging the two given arrays, the instructions should ask users to "Change the nonMutatingPush function so it uses concat to merge newItem with original, without altering and "
Yeah makes sense to me.
And since merging two arrays is taught in the previous lesson, I think the goal of this lesson is to replicate the behaviour of push using concat. In that case, my suggestion would be: "Change the nonMutatingPush function so it uses concat to replicate the behaviour of push without altering the first and second arrays".
I think we need to be careful. The intended behavior is better. We don't want the users to concat a reference to the second array.
! you need to assign (newItem) to a new variable and return it
As far as I can see the idea here is the user should create a function that behaves like , but it returns a new array instead of modifying the array it's called on. That function can be implemented as follows This replicates as closely as possible, so that if I in the same way as if I used push So, the main issue is that both the solution and the final test need updating. Also wording, should help guide users down the right path.
If we want users to learn a "non mutating push", I think its better that the solution not provide an avenue to mutate the original arrays. I think the current intended solution is fine but the wording describing it isn't quite accurate.
I think it would be better to compare:
IMHO, it is necessary either to change the expected solution or the wording of the task. For example: P.S.: It seems to me that it is better to change the expected solution (based on the previously described behavior of the push method)
I wouldn't change the expected behavior.. If we change the expected behavior, then this is no longer a non-mutating function. We should modify the description.
I agree with any of your solutions, but I did not understand - why would another solution cease to be a non-mutating function?
If you change the expected behavior, then if is an array, the output of this function can be used to mutate , as I explained above.
Thank you. I understand what you mean... - but then it looks like we are deliberately simplifying the task to meet the requirements. Maybe it's better to just replace the expected behavior with (for example)?
I don't see how this would be a simplification. The current solution works fine. Not changing the solution wouldn't make the task simpler - it would make it identical to what it is right now.
We just need to describe the task more accurately.
We show that we can get this result with push: [1, 2, 3, [4, 5]], and then we ask to get [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] with concat?.. Well... - Ok. Thank you for your time.
Right.... You highlighted exactly the [wrong] description that I want replaced. Using push like that mutates one array and allows for the mutation of the other. The current solution to the challenge prevents mutation of both. The description should reflect that fact. Changing the solution to permit mutation of one of the arguments misses the idea of making a more functional solution to using push.
Can I work on this ?
Sure. We don't assign issues - we accept the first complete PR that addresses the issue. In ttis case, we are looking for someone to update the description of the challenge so that is clear that we want a non-mutating push.
I've read through the full thread and submitted a PR that I think should satisfy most, if not all, concerns with the description.
The Project euler problem 250 has a format issue Confront with To fix this issue you will need to change this file so that the numbers are correctly formatted as exponents: (You can use the way ^ is written in the challenge as a guide to fix 1^1, 2^2, and 3^3) Please make sure you read , we prioritize contributors following the instructions in our guides. Join us in or if you need help contributing, our moderators will guide you through this. An issue with the help wanted or first timers only label is open for contribution. The first comprehensive PR created will be reviewed and merged. We typically do not assign issues to anyone other than long-time contributors. Sometimes we may get more than one pull requests. We typically accept the most quality contribution followed by the one that is made first. Happy contributing.
I have set up the project in my local machine and looking to contribute for open source is this still open can I work on it
This part is still tripping people up Usually one piece or another gets lost: Maybe this is clearer Side note - I still don't love the fact that we say like a variable instead of like a string literal. I think that's confusing here. (I know, I know, the style guide hates "s) No response All No response
Agreed, it has the potential to be confusing. Can we reword to say: "If is the string and ..."
I'm still not clear on the reason why string literals in inline code blocks are forbidden by the style guide since it makes the instructions less clear in this case. do you have some context?
I don't remember the full reason, only that it was a decision made as part of our i18n efforts. We reference a discussion in but I can't for the life of me find where that discussion is.
Currently on step number 5 there's a note that reads Note that when reassigning a variable that has already been declared, you do not use the let keyword. As it stands this note is incorrect and unnecessary. No code, just instructions re-wording. The note could be changed to: Note: You can only re-assign a variables that has been declared with Or we can simply remove it altogether instead. <img width="1217" alt="Screen Shot 2024-05-02 at 10 31 38" src=""- Device: [Laptop] OS: [MacOS 12.7.4] Browser: [Chrome] Version: [124.0.6367.91] No response
The note is correct. I think you are interpertering it wrong? It is saying does not need to be used when re-assinging the variable with a new value. edit: It is not saying that you can use any kind of keyword like or
I understand what's it's trying to convey, but it's written in a confusing way. Here's the text directly copied into ChatGPT for some additional context: <img width="820" alt="Screen Shot 2024-05-02 at 11 01 54" src=""
Text refers to potential situation when both assignments are using , ie: Depending on where exactly both are used, this can result in . - - x = 10; There's no on this line. It's one of the cases when chat doesn't know what it's talking about.
Hi thank you for creating the issue. As Sem pointed out, we don't think the note should be updated to because the new version communicates different information from the original. I think the confusion came from the word "declared". The word isn't needed since "reassigning" already implies that the variable has been declared, so I'd propose changing the sentence a little: cc'ing for input, since you're much more experienced with this kind of change than I am
Thanks for the input your proposal addresses the issue I presented
That change works for me. Let's open it up for first timers This has been opened for contribution. The first comprehensive PR created will be reviewed and merged. We typically do not assign issues to anyone other than long-time contributors.
The following test (user story) prevents my previously passing project from passing: Important: Notice I use instead of just I never claimed to be a UI expert Do we want to keep such a test? No response Unrelated No response
Maybe you should update your project Honestly I think small tweaks are going to be okay - my tribute page fails because the image needs a height now.
I am also happy with small tweaks, but we did (largely) want to keep the requirements exactly the same. The only change we agreed upon is to add requirements for tags.
Looks like they accommodated for the tag in that test. Maybe we can just add it here too.
although, I think it's good, that we moved on from the old test. tag is extremely useful in html, it has attribute that help developers use less needed css, which lead to better experience, . it should be accepted to use Edit: if you paste this code in it won't pass although there is a media query but in the html Edit: I changed the for easier testing