London | 26-ITP-Sep | Diana Ausiejute | Sprint 2 |Implement and Rewrite Tests by ausiejute · Pull Request #1672 · CodeYourFuture/Module-Structuring-and-Testing-Data

ausiejute · 2026-10-10T01:30:16Z

Learners, PR Template

Self checklist

I have titled my PR with Region | Cohort | FirstName LastName | Sprint | Assignment Title
My changes meet the requirements of the task
I have tested my changes
My changes follow the style guide

Task code

CYF-1059

Changelist

Wrote function implementations and tests in Node and Jest covering a variety of cases.

…plementation

dkrest1 · 2026-10-11T18:03:18Z

 // execute the code to ensure all tests pass.

-export function getAngleType(angle) {
-  // TODO: Implement this function


What do you think happens when a function is declared twice, once at the top and again right inside itself without the inner one ever being called?

I had to have a read about it and it seems that the function would be redefined inside of itself resulting in the inner function being called instead, but only if it needed to be a recursive one. In this situation, it would look confusing, but would still do the intended job.
However, I think there might have been a misunderstanding with the diff. I only changed the function declaration/export style slightly, so the original declaration in red was replaced by the implementation in green; the function isn't declared twice. I wondered about this because a similar comment was added to another task (implement-isProperFraction) on a function that was also in the deleted code. Could you clarify if I'm missing something?

You are spot on! That was entirely on my end due to viewing the diff in Unified View, which made the replaced code look like a duplicate declaration. Your implementation looks completely correct, no double declaration at all. Thanks for clearing that up, and great eye on catching that diff quirk!

dkrest1 · 2026-10-11T18:06:45Z

 // execute the code to ensure all tests pass.

-export function getAngleType(angle) {
-  // TODO: Implement this function


What happens if someone passes a non-number like "90" or null here? Should we add validation

Good point. I did not take that into consideration. Passing a regular string would return an "invalid angle", but an empty one or null would not

great! changes implemented

dkrest1 · 2026-10-11T18:16:51Z


 // TODO: Write tests to cover all cases, including boundary and invalid cases.
 // Example: Identify Right Angles



Should we add tests for zero and negative numbers too, just to check how those boundary cases are handled

Awesome update! Checking for zero and negative numbers makes the test suite much stronger. Everything looks solid here.

dkrest1 · 2026-10-11T18:22:16Z

 // execute the code to ensure all tests pass.

-export function isProperFraction(numerator, denominator) {
-  // TODO: Implement this function


Looks like this function is declared twice here. What do you think happens to that inner function since it's never called

I changed the function declaration/export style slightly and if you view the file it's more clear that the function has been declared once

yeah!, great catch

dkrest1 · 2026-10-11T18:24:24Z


 // TODO: Write tests to cover all cases.
 // What combinations of numerators and denominators should you test?



What happens if the denominator is 0? Should we add a test case to see how the function handles that?

Awesome, I see you’ve already implemented this fix! Everything looks good here.

dkrest1 · 2026-10-11T18:28:41Z

+    return "invalid";
+  }
 }
+


Is there any debug logging at the bottom of the file that we should remove before finalizing?

sorry I couldn't find any

Check other comments about this

dkrest1 · 2026-10-11T18:29:53Z

 // execute the code to ensure all tests pass.

-export function getCardValue(card) {
-  // TODO: Implement this function


Just like the other files, this function is declared twice. What happens to the inner function since it isn't exported or called

once again, the function is declared once.. The export statement simply makes that existing function available to other modules; it does not declare another function or create an inner function. Your comments are written on the deleted sections

Thanks for pointing this out! Just like in the other exercise, this was down to how I was viewing the diff in GitHub (Unified View showing the old red lines alongside the new green lines). Your code actually only declares the function once and is completely fine. Great job on the implementation!

dkrest1 · 2026-10-11T18:31:25Z

+    cardRank == "10"
+  ) {
+    return Number(cardRank);
+  } else {


The instructions above mention that an invalid card string should throw an error. How does returning the string "invalid" compare to throwing an error

returning the string "invalid" would still allow the program to continue running without interruption, whereas throwing an error indicates a more serious issue that requires immediate attention and handling

Edit: I see now that some misunderstandings happened due to us looking at different versions of the file

Spot on! You've captured the exact difference in control flow—returning a value allows execution to continue silently, whereas throwing an error halts execution and forces the caller to handle the edge case explicitly.

Also, completely agree regarding the diff mix-up thanks for bearing with me while I sorted out my view settings!

dkrest1 · 2026-10-11T18:34:27Z

  ) {
    return Number(cardRank);
  } else {
-    return "invalid";


What happens to the throw new Error statement right after return "invalid"; on line 57? Will that error ever actually be reached by the program?

line 56-59: assert.throws(
() => getCardValue(""),
Error,
"Should throw an error for empty input"

dkrest1 · 2026-10-11T18:35:00Z

+    throw new Error(`Expected a number followed by a suit, but got "${card}"`);
  }
 }



Is there any debug logging (console.log) at the bottom of the file that we should remove before finalizing or committing our code?

function getCardValue(card) { // implementation } export { getCardValue };

all sorted now, spot on!

dkrest1 · 2026-10-11T18:38:07Z

 // To learn how to test whether a function throws an error as expected in Jest,
 // please refer to the Jest documentation:
 // https://jestjs.io/docs/expect#tothrowerror
+// -----number cards------


GREAT WORK HERE!
but notice how all the number card tests (2 through 9) follow the exact same pattern. Is there a built-in Jest feature (like test.each) we could use here to keep our tests DRY (Do not repeat yourself) and avoid repeating code

thanks! it's great to know how to avoid repeating the code

Nice Refactor with test.each

dkrest1

Great job working through these! Your logic and test coverage for edge cases and errors are really strong.

Before finalizing, just double-check for:

Duplicate function declarations in your implementation files.
Leftover debug logs (console.log) that can be removed.

DRY tests (like using test.each for repetitive test cases).

Thanks for sharing your progress, keep up the great work!

dkrest1

Great work on this PR, Diana! 🚀

Thank you for working through all the feedback so thoroughly and for bearing with me through the initial diff viewer confusion. You’ve done a great job restructuring the tests, applying edge-case coverage for negative numbers and zero, and understanding the core mechanics between returning error strings vs. throwing errors.

Everything looks clean, accurate, and well-tested now. Approved!

ausiejute added 9 commits October 7, 2026 15:00

Implement a get-angle-type function

698f2ba

Write tests to cover all get-angle-type function cases

898be59

Implement is-proper-fraction function

7eba76c

Write tests to cover all proper-fraction-function cases

6033efe

Implement a get-card-value function

5ec0fc9

Write a few tests and fix the code to add correct error messages

a7a2c63

Rewrite get-angle-type test in Jest, covering all cases

77f784c

Rewrite is-proper-fraction test in Jest, covering all cases

29c23e6

Rewrite get-card-value test in Jest, fix the Node test, modify the im…

12da92f

…plementation

ausiejute added 📅 Sprint 2 Assigned during Sprint 2 of this module Needs Review Trainee to add when requesting review. PRs without this label will not be reviewed. labels Oct 10, 2026

dkrest1 self-assigned this Oct 11, 2026

dkrest1 self-requested a review October 11, 2026 17:37

dkrest1 added the Review in progress This review is currently being reviewed. This label will be replaced by "Reviewed" soon. label Oct 11, 2026

dkrest1 reviewed Oct 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

dkrest1 suggested changes Oct 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Add a few extra cases to the tests and improve the function itself

7e9f694

ausiejute added 2 commits October 12, 2026 23:30

Add a case of 0 as the denominator

55184b4

Use test.each to avoid repeating code

8531a8f

ausiejute requested a review from dkrest1 October 12, 2026 23:45

ausiejute added the Needs Review Trainee to add when requesting review. PRs without this label will not be reviewed. label Oct 12, 2026

dkrest1 approved these changes Oct 14, 2026

View reviewed changes


		// TODO: Write tests to cover all cases, including boundary and invalid cases.
		// Example: Identify Right Angles


		// TODO: Write tests to cover all cases.
		// What combinations of numerators and denominators should you test?

Conversation

ausiejute commented Oct 10, 2026

Learners, PR Template

Task code

Changelist

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ausiejute Oct 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ausiejute Oct 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ausiejute Oct 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ausiejute Oct 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dkrest1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dkrest1 left a comment

ausiejute Oct 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ausiejute Oct 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ausiejute Oct 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

ausiejute Oct 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading