That sure isn’t embarrassing. Why do you say something like that?
How do you know it was a validator in the description?
One may check the details of validators in the Contributions view, i.e. the view where one can comment on, approve or reject clashes and puzzles.
Validators are supposed to be hidden for preventing hardcoding solutions, so it is definitely not a good idea that a validator is the same as a test, and by the same logic, it is also not a good idea that a validator is shown as part of a puzzle statement.
Anyone reading the contribution before it was approved and published could see the validators.
This thread was started on October 16th. So I guess the puzzle was already approved. It was probably no longer under contributions.
The validators were hidden at that point.
So how would anyone know that a validator was in an example in the puzzle description? Besides those who were really interested in the validators in the contribution view.
Also, quoted from https://www.codingame.com/playgrounds/40701/help-center/approval-process:
Editor right: editors have approver rights. Editors can also edit approved contributions.
Any player whose level is greater or equals to 29 has editor rights.
I have a level greater than 29, hence I have access to the validators of all text-based puzzles, both before and after approval.
Hi,
Code read again, I don’t see my mistake. Please, could some one give me another test 8, closer to validator 8 ?
Thx,
Are you able to create custom tests based on my last reply to you? It should not be that difficult to create one by yourself.
all rewritten and it’s ok, thx for the help
merci b0n5a1,
ton jeu d’essai m’a permis de trouver l’erreur qui subsistait dans le test 4.
thank you b0n5a1,
your test set allowed me to find the error that remained in test 4.
Same situation, everything fine until validator 8. I had to put Codingame in expert mode to have custom test cases and build a shuffled one from the 8th test case.
@pardouin said that a proper cycle detection is not needed, but that’s not exactly true, you need a little somewhat evolved loop checking because it is not sufficient to rely on the fact that the first and last char of the replacement are already known (the change in ordering invalidates this hypothesis).
My solution fails for validator 6. Anyone have a custom testcase I can use to find the error in my code?
Validator 6 is similar to Test 6: there is one pair of conflicting instructions. If your code can identify the pair and output “ERROR”, you pass that validator.
Don’t know why but wrote my check more strict and now it works also for the validator. Thanks!
1 Like
I found the validators and was able to figure out the difference. Hope it helps others in the future who have the same issue (only validator 6 is failing, while all tests and other validators are ok). You can try this test case, which is slightly different than test case 6:
zo zi tw ax
5
ioerc
zizhm
asrfb
tuoge
urebe