More Fire-Check Confusion

[michae...@gmail.com]

Hi,

I think I may have found some more faulty fire checks.

The ones that fail are:

• fromJust (solve allBlankSudoku)
  

The test-case fails because our solution does not find the exact same solution as expected.

But depending on how the algorithm got implemented the outcome for solve allBlankSudoku can't be defined in one solution.

In my opinion a better check here would be if the found solution does not contain any blank cells and isOkay.

 Here the Test-Output:

 

fromJust (solve allBlankSudoku):                               FAIL

        test/Spec/Util.hs:82:

        expected:

123456789

        456789123

        789123456

        214365897

        365897214

        897214365

        531642978

        642978531

        978531642

        

        but got:

246135879

        135879246

        879246135

        563412798

        412798563

        798563412

        654321987

        321987654

        987654321

• blanks

The fire-check fails because the output is not in the same order.

       a =/= b

sort a ==  sort b 

 

So a similar problem as in my other post, a couple of days ago.

 

Here the Test-Output:

 

student solution vs official solution

      blanks:                                                        FAIL

        *** Failed! Falsifiable (after 1 test):

        .........

        .........

        .57.4...3

        .2.......

        .........

        3.....1..

        .....1...

        .2.....67

        ....2...6

[(8,7),(8,6),(8,5),(8,3),(8,2),(8,1),(8,0),(7,6),(7,5),(7,4),(7,3),(7,2),(7,0),(6,8),(6,7),(6,6),(6,4),(6,3),(6,2),(6,1),(6,0),(5,8),(5,7),(5,5),(5,4),(5,3),(5,2),(5,1),(4,8),(4,7),(4,6),(4,5),(4,4),(4,3),(4,2),(4,1),(4,0),(3,8),(3,7),(3,6),(3,5),(3,4),(3,3),(3,2),(3,0),(2,7),(2,6),(2,5),(2,3),(2,0),(1,8),(1,7),(1,6),(1,5),(1,4),(1,3),(1,2),(1,1),(1,0),(0,8),(0,7),(0,6),(0,5),(0,4),(0,3),(0,2),(0,1),(0,0)]

/=

[(0,0),(0,1),(0,2),(0,3),(0,4),(0,5),(0,6),(0,7),(0,8),(1,0),(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(1,4),(1,5),(1,6),(1,7),(1,8),(2,0),(2,3),(2,5),(2,6),(2,7),(3,0),(3,2),(3,3),(3,4),(3,5),(3,6),(3,7),(3,8),(4,0),(4,1),(4,2),(4,3),(4,4),(4,5),(4,6),(4,7),(4,8),(5,1),(5,2),(5,3),(5,4),(5,5),(5,7),(5,8),(6,0),(6,1),(6,2),(6,3),(6,4),(6,6),(6,7),(6,8),(7,0),(7,2),(7,3),(7,4),(7,5),(7,6),(8,0),(8,1),(8,2),(8,3),(8,5),(8,6),(8,7)]

Kind regards,

Michael

[Thomas Hallgren]

Hi,

These parts of tests are too picky, so disregard them for the time being.

Best regards,
Thomas H

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "2018 Functional Programming TDA452 / DIT 143" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chalmers-fp-20...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to chalmers...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/chalmers-fp-2018/5546a65b-2cde-4a95-9a15-280185057536%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jannis Limperg]

Hej Michael,

you're right, these tests were too fragile. I've removed the one for
`solve allBlankSudoku` and adjusted the one for `blanks`. I've also
adjusted a bunch of other tests for `blanks` and `candidates` along
similar lines.

Thanks again for these reports. They are very valuable since it's hard
to spot problems like these when I only have my own solution to test the
testsuites against.

Cheers,
Jannis

On 04.12.18 02:40, mic...@student.chalmers.se wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think I may have found some more faulty fire checks.
>
> The ones that fail are:
>

> * *fromJust (solve allBlankSudoku)
> *

>
> The test-case fails because our solution does not find the exact
> same solution as expected.
>
> But depending on how the algorithm got implemented the outcome for

> *solve allBlankSudoku* can't be defined in one solution.

>
>
> In my opinion a better check here would be if the found solution

> does not contain any blank cells and *isOkay.*

>
>
>  Here the Test-Output:
>
>  
> |
> fromJust (solve allBlankSudoku):                               FAIL
>         test/Spec/Util.hs:82:
>         expected:
> 123456789
>         456789123
>         789123456
>         214365897
>         365897214
>         897214365
>         531642978
>         642978531
>         978531642
>         
>         but got:
> 246135879
>         135879246
>         879246135
>         563412798
>         412798563
>         798563412
>         654321987
>         321987654
>         987654321
> |
>

> * *blanks*