Fix: Ignore order on task pairing checks#197
Open
stefantds wants to merge 1 commit intoadnanaziz:masterfrom
Open
Fix: Ignore order on task pairing checks#197stefantds wants to merge 1 commit intoadnanaziz:masterfrom
stefantds wants to merge 1 commit intoadnanaziz:masterfrom
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
In problem 17.01, the problem statement doesn't mention any particular order of the output. Currently the test only accepts the given order in the test file.
My personal understanding of the problem statement is that the task assignment should
[(0, 1), (2, 3)]and[(2, 3), (0, 1)]should be equivalent(0,1)and(1,0)should be equivalentThe proposed fix implements a way to achieve the above-mentioned fixes.
Context: while working on https://github.com/stefantds/go-epi-judge I got to look at some Java test code a bit closer. I've found some small potential improvements. I am opening a separate PR for each. Please have a look if there is something that can be improved.