Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Solution #4104

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

PolianskyiDmytro
Copy link

No description provided.

Copy link

@mateacademy-ai-mentor mateacademy-ai-mentor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for your hard work on this task! 😊 While your implementation of the transformStateWithClones function is on the right track, there are a few critical issues that need to be addressed to meet the core requirements.

  1. Object Mutation: The code currently mutates the oneState object directly within the switch cases. It's important to avoid direct mutations and instead create a copy using Object.assign or the spread operator.

  2. Switch Statement: The absence of a default case in your switch statement is a critical oversight. Adding a default case is necessary for error handling and aligns with best practices.

  3. Placement of Object Copy: Ensure that the line stateClone.push(Object.assign({}, oneState)); is placed outside the switch block but inside the loop, as per the prompt requirements. This ensures a copy of the state is pushed to the array after processing each action.

  4. Naming Convention: Consider renaming oneState to something more descriptive like stateCopy to improve code readability.

  5. Loop Choice: While not critical, using a for...of loop instead of for...in for iterating over arrays is a good practice to avoid potential issues.

Please address these issues to ensure your code meets the task requirements. Keep up the great work, and don't hesitate to reach out if you need further assistance! 🚀

✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨

🔄 Fix the issues, commit the changes, and then re-request my review using the Re-request review button in the Reviewers tab.

}
}

stateClone.push(Object.assign({}, oneState));

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

According to the additional prompt rules, it is better to push a copy of the object to the array at the end of each loop cycle, but outside of the switch block. Consider moving this line outside the switch block, after the current action is processed.

Copy link

@mateacademy-ai-mentor mateacademy-ai-mentor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Review Summary

Great effort on implementing the transformStateWithClones function! 🎉 While your solution is on the right track, there are a few critical issues that need attention to fully meet the task requirements:

  1. Object Mutation: Avoid mutating the stateClone directly. Instead, use Object.assign or the spread operator to create a copy of the state.

  2. Switch Statement: Ensure a default case is present for error handling. Currently, the default case clears the entire state, which might not be intended.

  3. Placement of Object Copy: The line finalStates.push(Object.assign({}, stateClone)); should be inside the loop but outside the switch block to ensure a copy of the state is pushed after processing each action.

  4. Loop Choice: Replace the for...in loop with a for...of loop for iterating over arrays to avoid potential issues.

  5. Initialization of stateClone: Initialize stateClone inside the loop to ensure a fresh copy of the state is used for each action, preventing unintended mutations.

  6. Naming Convention: Consider renaming stateClone to stateCopy for better readability.

These improvements will enhance the functionality and readability of your code. Remember, addressing these issues will help you avoid similar problems in the future. Keep up the good work and continue learning from these experiences! 🚀

✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨

@@ -7,7 +7,34 @@
* @return {Object[]}
*/
function transformStateWithClones(state, actions) {
// write code here
const finalStates = [];
const stateClone = {};

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The stateClone should be initialized inside the loop to ensure a fresh copy of the state is used for each action. This prevents unintended mutations across iterations.


Object.assign(stateClone, state);

for (const step in actions) {

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consider using a for...of loop instead of for...in for iterating over the actions array. The for...in loop is generally used for iterating over object properties and can lead to unexpected behavior when used with arrays.

Comment on lines 28 to 31
default:
for (const key in stateClone) {
delete stateClone[key];
}

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The default case currently deletes all properties from stateClone. Ensure this behavior is intended, as it will result in an empty state object for any unrecognized action type.

}
}

finalStates.push(Object.assign({}, stateClone));

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The line finalStates.push(Object.assign({}, stateClone)); should be placed outside the switch block but inside the loop, as per the prompt requirements. This ensures a copy of the state is pushed to the array after processing each action.

Copy link

@VitaliyBondarenko1982 VitaliyBondarenko1982 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants