Solution #4118
Solution #4118
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for your hard work on this implementation! 😊 There are a few critical issues that need to be addressed before we can approve this pull request. Specifically, the state should be pushed to the stateHistory array outside of the switch block to ensure the state is correctly captured after each action. Additionally, adding a default case in the switch statement is important for error handling. Once these changes are made, your solution will be much stronger. Keep up the great work! 🚀
✨ 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.
| currentState = clearProperties(currentState); | ||
| break; | ||
| } | ||
| stateHistory.push(currentState); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The current implementation pushes the currentState to stateHistory inside the switch block. 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, after the current action is processed. Consider moving this line outside of the switch block, just before the end of the loop.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
Great job on implementing the transformStateWithClones function! 🎉 Your code meets most of the task requirements and constraints, and it effectively handles cloning and transforming the state without mutating the original state object. However, there are a couple of critical issues that need attention:
-
Default Case in Switch Statement: It's important to include a default case in the
switchstatement for error handling. This will help manage unexpected action types and make your code more robust. -
Pushing State Copy Outside Switch Block: Currently, the
currentStateis pushed to thestateHistoryarray inside theswitchblock. To ensure consistency and avoid redundancy, it should be pushed outside theswitchblock, after processing the current action.
These adjustments will strengthen your solution and align it better with the task requirements. Remember, addressing these issues will not only improve your current code but also enhance your coding skills for future projects.
Keep up the great work, and continue learning from these experiences! 🚀
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
| switch (action.type) { | ||
| case 'addProperties': | ||
| currentState = addProperties(currentState, action.extraData); | ||
| break; | ||
|
|
||
| case 'removeProperties': | ||
| currentState = removeProperties(currentState, action.keysToRemove); | ||
| break; | ||
|
|
||
| case 'clear': | ||
| currentState = clearProperties(currentState); | ||
| break; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding a default case in the switch statement to handle unexpected action types. This will improve error handling and make the code more robust.
| break; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| stateHistory.push(currentState); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The current implementation pushes currentState to stateHistory inside the loop but within the switch block. According to the task requirements, 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, after the current action is processed.
No description provided.