jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
None of the GET request examples/Tests mention to be able to GET with id param, However during one of the PUT request tests there is a GET request sent with an ID, i struggled to find this Bug in my code, i feel adding one extra Functional test for GET request specifically requiring to be able to GET by IDs, If using mongoDB like i was the ID needs the toString Method in order to be read as a string. i attached a screen shot shows the PUT test with the GET request at the bottom Either extra functional test requiring to be able to GET with an ID, or Updated with GET example that shows GET with an ID ! Device: [Desktop] OS: [Windows 11 WSL Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS] Browser: [Chrome] Version: [122.0.6261.70 ] No response_
This requirement would be covered by: I'd be fine adding another check inside that existing test to look at the param.
i see now the "any field" and value, this was a lack of knowledge at the time, being able to get data by an "id" is imperative. Id like to propose a solution to the test above, change query of to GET the post created by carol and assigned to eric, this keeps the get Multiple aspect but returns 1 doc the of to GET and assert that of is equal to of
I'm hesitant to rewrite the entire tests, when instead we could update the test I indicated to try a query by ID (which we know won't break existing projects because a later test relies on that functionality).
Agreed my proposed solution would be for the existing GET test that you indicated, you could just drop in and after existing , this adds a query by ID. The current tests only query by and !
Ah, I see. Yes, that would be a good approach. I'll go ahead and open this one up.

Related discussion:
text: const getMultiple = await $.get(url + '?created_by=Alice&assigned_to=Bob'); assert.isArray(getMultiple); assert.lengthOf(getMultiple, 2); <ins> const copyId = getMultiple[0]._id; const getById = await $.get(url + `?_id=${copyId}`); assert.isArray(getById); assert.lengthOf(getById, 1); assert.equal(getById[0]._id, copyId, 'should be able to query a document by _id') </ins> } catch (err) { throw new Error(err.responseText || err.message); }
Code change:
On Settings page, the empty space between the "Certifications" and "Legacy Certifications" seems to be missing. <img width="840" alt="Screenshot 2024-03-12 at 12 04 47" src=""We could add a to space them out a little. The Spacer should go in between line 421 and 422.

Related discussion:
text: {currentCertTitles.map(title => ( <Certification key={title} certName={title} t={t} /> ))} <ins> <Spacer size='medium' /> </ins> <SectionHeader>{t('settings.headings.legacy-certs')}</SectionHeader> <LegacyFullStack {...props} /> {legacyCertTitles.map(title => (
Code change:
The instructions say, in part: A literal (heh) reading of these instructions resulted in a learner producing this code: I read the instructions and could not figure out what the template string was supposed to do. I had to check the next step. I'm still confused, because a join produces a string output, so it seems completely superfluous. See above. I don't know exactly how to reword this, but the "all of those" is probably too ambiguous. No response N/A No response
Yeah, I agree. it is not clear what it is pointing to. It could be reworded as, Or something along those lines. The next steps is adding a hyphen followed by So the final result will be this
May I proceed to create a pull request to address this issue? I require a merged pull request contribution for my university assignment in open source.
This wording looks good to me. If you want to create a PR you're welcome to do so.
I am currently addressing this issue and have submitted a pull request.I would greatly appreciate it if you could review my pull request at your earliest convenience. If the changes meet the project's standards and requirements, I kindly ask for your assistance in merging them.This contribution is essential for my university assignment.

Related discussion:
text: Create a `taskObj` object with an `id` property as the first property. For the value of the `id` property, retrieve the value of the `titleInput` field, convert it to lowercase, and then use the `split()` and `join()` methods to hyphenate it. <del> Make sure all of those are in template literals because you need the `id` property value as a string. </del> <ins> Make sure that the value of the `id` property is enclosed within template literals, as you will be appending more to the string later on. </ins> # --hints--
Code change:
The instructions state: And will only check as the right answer if you place these 3 values in that specific order. This answer should be correct regardless of the order of the values. No response Device: [e.g. iPhone 6, Laptop] OS: [e.g. iOS 14, Windows 10, Ubuntu 20.04] Browser: [e.g. Chrome, Safari] Version: [e.g. 22] No response

Related discussion:
text: ```js const player = new Player(); <del> assert.match(player.update.toString(), /ifs*(s*this.position.ys*+s*this.heights*+s*this.velocity.ys*<=s*canvas.heights*)s*{s*}/); </del> <ins> assert.match(player.update.toString(), /ifs*(s*(?:this.position.ys*+s*this.heights*+s*this.velocity.y|this.position.ys*+s*this.velocity.ys*+s*this.height|this.heights*+s*this.position.ys*+s*this.velocity.y|this.heights*+s*this.velocity.ys*+s*this.position.y|this.velocity.ys*+s*this.position.ys*+s*this.height|this.velocity.ys*+s*this.heights*+s*this.position.y)s*<=s*canvas.heights*)s*{s*}/); </ins> ``` # --seed--
Code change:
it is confusing whether campers will pass string of 'Players' or variable named . i think the wording should be cleared on the hint. ! Your parameter should have a default value pointing towards the variable named . something like this should be on the hint ? ! OS: [Windows 11] Browser: [Chrome] No response
I think it would be best to update the description to remind campers where came from some thing like

Related discussion:
text: console.log(greeting()); // Hello Anonymous ``` <del> Add a new parameter to your `setPlayerCards` function called `arr` and assign it a default value of `players`. </del> <ins> Add a new parameter to your `setPlayerCards` function called `arr` and assign it a default value of `players`. Remember that you destructured the `players` variable from the `myFavoriteFootballTeam` object on line `175`. </ins> # --hints--
Code change:
To make it clearer what the syntax should be for accessing the last element of an array, let's go with this updated description js array[ - 1] ` see explanation above see explanation above No response Device: [e.g. iPhone 6, Laptop] OS: [e.g. iOS 14, Windows 10, Ubuntu 20.04] Browser: [e.g. Chrome, Safari] Version: [e.g. 22] No response
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. 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 Happy coding

Related discussion:
text: Before moving on, this is a great opportunity to learn a common array use. Currently, your code accesses the last element in the array with `rows[2]`. But you may not know how many elements are in an array when you want the last one. <del> You can make use of the `.length` property of an array - this returns the number of elements in the array. For example, your `rows` array has 3 elements, so `rows.length` would be `3`. </del> <ins> You can make use of the `.length` property of an array - this returns the number of elements in the array. To get the last element of any array, you can use the following syntax: </ins> <del> Since you know the last element is at index `2`, you can compare that with the length of the array and see it is one less. The last element of an array will always be accessible at the index `length - 1`. You can use that in your bracket notation. </del> <ins> ```js array[array.length - 1] ``` `array.length` returns the number of elements in the array. By subtracting `1`, you get the index of the last element in the array. You can apply this same concept to your `rows` array. Update your `rows[2]` to dynamically access the last element in the `rows` array. Refer to the example above to help you. </ins> <del> Update your `rows[2]` to access the `rows.length - 1` index instead of the `2` index. You should not see anything change in your console. </del> <ins> You should not see anything change in your console. </ins> # --hints--
Code change:
We are getting a lot of confusion on the forum about step 18. The confusion stems from not know how to log the array to the console. So we should update the code example in the description to log the example array. That should help with what is expected to do. js let array = [1, 2, 3]; array[1] = 25; (array); // prints [1, 25, 3] ` see explanation above see explanation above No response Device: [e.g. iPhone 6, Laptop] OS: [e.g. iOS 14, Windows 10, Ubuntu 20.04] Browser: [e.g. Chrome, Safari] Version: [e.g. 22] No response
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. 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 Happy coding

Related discussion:
text: ```js let array = [1, 2, 3]; array[1] = 25; <ins> console.log(array); // prints [1, 25, 3] </ins> ``` Update the **third** element of your `rows` array to be the number `10`. Then print the `rows` array to your console.
Code change:
The code provided below does not pass, even though it should. The test does not allow for an optional whitespace between the backticks/single or double quotation marks and the element - in this case a paragraph element. The hint message does not suggest that campers keep the code in one line. In fact, throughout all the curricula, I've been under the impression that creating several lines for setting improves readability, and is, therefore, good practice. So, I don't see any reasons why the tests shouldn't allow this formatting. Since I was not sure whether my code generates an essential difference on the UI/Webpage, I tested it. There was no difference. So, I thought this might be a bug in testing. I filed a PR on this issue. I am quite new to contributing and still learning. Please let me know if there is anything I've done that did not follow good practice. The test does not allow for an optional whitespace between the backticks and the element. It should. ! Device: Laptop OS: Windows 11 Browser: FireFox Version: 125.0.2 (64-bit) No response

Related discussion:
text: ```js <del> assert.match(code, /authorContainer.innerHTMLs*=s*(`|"|')<p.*>.*</p>1/) </del> <ins> assert.match(code, /authorContainer.innerHTMLs*=s*(`|"|')s*<p.*>.*</p>s*1/) </ins> ``` Your `p` element should have the class `error-msg`. ```js <del> assert.match(code, /(`|"|')<ps+classs*=s*("|')error-msg2>/) </del> <ins> assert.match(code, /(`|"|')s*<ps+classs*=s*("|')error-msg2>/) </ins> ``` Your `p` element should have the text `There was an error loading the authors`. ```js <del> assert.match(code, /(`|"|')<ps+classs*=s*("|')error-msg2>Theres+wass+ans+errors+loadings+thes+authors</p>1s*;?/) </del> <ins> assert.match(code, /(`|"|')<ps+classs*=s*("|')error-msg2>Theres+wass+ans+errors+loadings+thes+authors</p>s*1s*;?/) </ins> ```
Code change:
in step 20 of the JS building a pyramid generator project, the step refers to the " rows[2] assignment" but should instead refer to the "rows[ - 1]" assignment as that is the line in the code at that moment (not the "rows[2]" line. As the step begins with the code as given above, the instructions shouldn't say "rows[2]" to refer to the line "rows[ - 1]" (therefore a small correction to the correct line of code is needed) ! Device: laptop OS: windows Browser: chrome Version: No response
Second test also will need to be changed accordingly.

Related discussion:
text: # --description-- <del> For now, remove your first console log and your `rows[2]` assignment. Leave the second `rows` log statement for later. </del> <ins> For now, remove your first console log and your `rows[rows.length - 1]` assignment. Leave the second `rows` log statement for later. </ins> # --hints--
Code change:
in step 20 of the JS building a pyramid generator project, the step refers to the " rows[2] assignment" but should instead refer to the "rows[ - 1]" assignment as that is the line in the code at that moment (not the "rows[2]" line. As the step begins with the code as given above, the instructions shouldn't say "rows[2]" to refer to the line "rows[ - 1]" (therefore a small correction to the correct line of code is needed) ! Device: laptop OS: windows Browser: chrome Version: No response
Second test also will need to be changed accordingly.

Related discussion:
text: assert.notMatch(code, /console.log(s*rows[s*0s*]s*)/); ``` <del> You should remove your `rows[2]` reassignment. </del> <ins> You should remove your `rows[rows.length - 1]` reassignment. </ins> ```js <del> assert.notMatch(code, /rows[2]/); </del> <ins> assert.notMatch(code, /rows[s*rows.lengths*-s*1s*]/); </ins> ``` You should not remove your `console.log(rows)` statement.
Code change:
The following classes in are unused and should be removed: .help-modal .help-modal-heading .btn-lgRemove the above classes from Test and confirm that the modal displays properly after the changes

Related discussion:
text: padding-bottom: 10px; } <del> .help-modal-heading { line-height: 1.5; font-weight: 400; word-spacing: -0.4ch; } </del> .help-form-legend { color: var(--secondary-color); border: 0;
Code change:
The following classes in are unused and should be removed: .help-modal .help-modal-heading .btn-lgRemove the above classes from Test and confirm that the modal displays properly after the changes

Related discussion:
text: text-align: left; } <del> @media screen and (max-width: 767px) { .help-modal .btn-lg { font-size: 16px; } } </del> .help-text-warning { text-align: left; }
Code change:
Timeout limits are too aggressive on this problem and blocking users from computing the correct answer. Verified via , the code above produces the correct number of semiprimes for 1, 10, ..., . However, for , we have a timeout. This code could probably be a bit more efficient, but even if I just cut it down to finding all primes < , it times out, indicating that it is not possible for campers to complete this exercise with the current infinite loop protections on this problem. All?
Seems like a good challenge to just remove the loop protect from entirely.
Seems like a reasonable fix to me

Related discussion:
text: "order": 1, "superBlock": "project-euler", "disableLoopProtectTests": true, <ins> "disableLoopProtectPreview": true, </ins> "challengeOrder": [ { "id": "5900f3d21000cf542c50fee4",
Code change:
On step 89 and 90 of the Pyramid generator there is this misterious error that appear, it can be confusing for campers. !
Error is coming from the function, specifically one of the string repeats. Depending on the and , when or will be , calling method of string will show that error. Edit: When condition is there's no such issue.
Yep. I think reworking the lessons so we never leave the learner with broken code (or at least never unexplained broken code) is the way to go.
I'm not sure if it was even intended to have broken code, description is suggesting everything should work fine. Step 91 asks for two changes, one of which specifically makes this error appear (second change fixes the issue).
Yeah, it's a bit confusing. Probably not intentional, though. On 91 there's this: the only time I don't see the error is when I've followed all the instructions on step 91.
Is this not enough to clear up any doubts? Cuz after following the instructions in step 91, there's nothing mysterious about the error anymore.
I don't think so. Step 89, where error is introduced, doesn't mention it. Neither does 90. It's only when you reach 91 that the error is mentioned and the text is which is incorrect. Changing to has no effect on the error. It's only the combination of that and adjusting the conditional that finally removes the error. The main issue with this is that it breaks the feedback loop between learner's actions and the code's behaviour. Speaking for myself, everything gets harder when the results of my actions are essentially invisible. I know we run tests to check you re doing it right, but that's not really a substitute for them seeing how your actions impact the program.
Okay. We need to at least note the possibility of an unexpected error to the camper. I'm thinking on step 89 now.
Just for posterity, the steps got shifted. Error is introduced by completing step 95 Error is resolved by completing step 96 What should be changed here: Step 95 should: Introduce and explain the error Ask the campers to change the comparison to Step 96 should: No longer ask campers to change the to Not mention that creates a

Related discussion:
text: Arrays have a special `length` property that allows you to see how many values, or <dfn>elements</dfn>, are in the array. You would access this property using syntax like `myArray.length`. <del> Update your condition to check if `rows.length` is less than or equal to `count`. </del> <ins> Note that `rows.length` in the `padRow` call would give you an off-by-one error, because `done` is incremented *before* the call. Update your condition to check if `rows.length` is less than `count`. </ins> # --hints-- <del> Your `while` loop should check if `rows.length` is less than or equal to `count`. </del> <ins> Your `while` loop should check if `rows.length` is less than `count`. </ins> ```js <del> assert.match(__helpers.removeJSComments(code), /whiles*(s*rows.lengths*<=s*counts*)/); </del> <ins> assert.match(__helpers.removeJSComments(code), /whiles*(s*rows.lengths*<s*counts*)/); </ins> ``` # --seed--
Code change:
On step 89 and 90 of the Pyramid generator there is this misterious error that appear, it can be confusing for campers. !
Error is coming from the function, specifically one of the string repeats. Depending on the and , when or will be , calling method of string will show that error. Edit: When condition is there's no such issue.
Yep. I think reworking the lessons so we never leave the learner with broken code (or at least never unexplained broken code) is the way to go.
I'm not sure if it was even intended to have broken code, description is suggesting everything should work fine. Step 91 asks for two changes, one of which specifically makes this error appear (second change fixes the issue).
Yeah, it's a bit confusing. Probably not intentional, though. On 91 there's this: the only time I don't see the error is when I've followed all the instructions on step 91.
Is this not enough to clear up any doubts? Cuz after following the instructions in step 91, there's nothing mysterious about the error anymore.
I don't think so. Step 89, where error is introduced, doesn't mention it. Neither does 90. It's only when you reach 91 that the error is mentioned and the text is which is incorrect. Changing to has no effect on the error. It's only the combination of that and adjusting the conditional that finally removes the error. The main issue with this is that it breaks the feedback loop between learner's actions and the code's behaviour. Speaking for myself, everything gets harder when the results of my actions are essentially invisible. I know we run tests to check you re doing it right, but that's not really a substitute for them seeing how your actions impact the program.
Okay. We need to at least note the possibility of an unexpected error to the camper. I'm thinking on step 89 now.
Just for posterity, the steps got shifted. Error is introduced by completing step 95 Error is resolved by completing step 96 What should be changed here: Step 95 should: Introduce and explain the error Ask the campers to change the comparison to Step 96 should: No longer ask campers to change the to Not mention that creates a

Related discussion:
text: # --description-- <del> You can also replace the `done` reference in your `padRow` call. Note that `rows.length` here would give you an off-by-one error, because `done` is incremented *before* the call. So you'll need to replace `done` here with `rows.length + 1`. When you do this, you may see a `Range Error`, because we've created another off-by-one error. You'll need to change the `while` condition to use the less than operator, instead of the less than or equal operator. </del> <ins> Replace the `done` reference in your `padRow` call with `rows.length + 1`. </ins> # --hints--
Code change:
On step 89 and 90 of the Pyramid generator there is this misterious error that appear, it can be confusing for campers. !
Error is coming from the function, specifically one of the string repeats. Depending on the and , when or will be , calling method of string will show that error. Edit: When condition is there's no such issue.
Yep. I think reworking the lessons so we never leave the learner with broken code (or at least never unexplained broken code) is the way to go.
I'm not sure if it was even intended to have broken code, description is suggesting everything should work fine. Step 91 asks for two changes, one of which specifically makes this error appear (second change fixes the issue).
Yeah, it's a bit confusing. Probably not intentional, though. On 91 there's this: the only time I don't see the error is when I've followed all the instructions on step 91.
Is this not enough to clear up any doubts? Cuz after following the instructions in step 91, there's nothing mysterious about the error anymore.
I don't think so. Step 89, where error is introduced, doesn't mention it. Neither does 90. It's only when you reach 91 that the error is mentioned and the text is which is incorrect. Changing to has no effect on the error. It's only the combination of that and adjusting the conditional that finally removes the error. The main issue with this is that it breaks the feedback loop between learner's actions and the code's behaviour. Speaking for myself, everything gets harder when the results of my actions are essentially invisible. I know we run tests to check you re doing it right, but that's not really a substitute for them seeing how your actions impact the program.
Okay. We need to at least note the possibility of an unexpected error to the camper. I'm thinking on step 89 now.
Just for posterity, the steps got shifted. Error is introduced by completing step 95 Error is resolved by completing step 96 What should be changed here: Step 95 should: Introduce and explain the error Ask the campers to change the comparison to Step 96 should: No longer ask campers to change the to Not mention that creates a

Related discussion:
text: assert.match(__helpers.removeJSComments(code), /rows.push(padRows*(s*rows.lengths*+s*1/); ``` <del> Your `while` loop should run while `rows.length` is less than `count`. ```js assert.match(__helpers.removeJSComments(code), /whiles*(s*rows.lengths*<s*count)/); ``` </del> # --seed-- ## --seed-contents--