Small description improvements (WIP)#147
Small description improvements (WIP)#147JosephBARBIERDARNAL wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
WalkthroughThe PR updates a Markdown example to initialize Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 1 | ❌ 2❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)
✅ Passed checks (1 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Tip Issue Planner is now in beta. Read the docs and try it out! Share your feedback on Discord. Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In `@challenges/tuples/src/lib.rs`:
- Around line 1-2: Tests are failing because create_tuple signature returns
(f64, i32, String) with order (b, a, c) but the tests still assert (a, b,
String); update the assertions in the tests (tests.rs) to expect the new tuple
order — i.e., check the first element is the f64 argument, second is the i32
argument, and third is the String produced from c — and adjust any pattern
matches or destructuring to use (b, a, c_string) instead of (a, b, c_string).
|
@dcodesdev Hi! This should be ready for review. |
Hi,
First of all, thanks for this great ressource! This is the very first time for me I use rust and your website is perfect for this.
Here I suggest some small changes that I think would make the lessons better.
Right now changes are:
declaring-variables: I was very confused by what to do here until I looked at the solution. I think it should more obvious that users should add some values towidthandheight.tuples: I think the example is too easy, so I suggest to change the position of 2 arguments to force users to put them in the right order.