-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46.6k
merge double_factorial #9431
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
merge double_factorial #9431
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Click here to look at the relevant links ⬇️
🔗 Relevant Links
Repository:
Python:
Automated review generated by algorithms-keeper. If there's any problem regarding this review, please open an issue about it.
algorithms-keeper
commands and options
algorithms-keeper actions can be triggered by commenting on this PR:
@algorithms-keeper review
to trigger the checks for only added pull request files@algorithms-keeper review-all
to trigger the checks for all the pull request files, including the modified files. As we cannot post review comments on lines not part of the diff, this command will post all the messages in one comment.NOTE: Commands are in beta and so this feature is restricted only to a member or owner of the organization.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Click here to look at the relevant links ⬇️
🔗 Relevant Links
Repository:
Python:
Automated review generated by algorithms-keeper. If there's any problem regarding this review, please open an issue about it.
algorithms-keeper
commands and options
algorithms-keeper actions can be triggered by commenting on this PR:
@algorithms-keeper review
to trigger the checks for only added pull request files@algorithms-keeper review-all
to trigger the checks for all the pull request files, including the modified files. As we cannot post review comments on lines not part of the diff, this command will post all the messages in one comment.NOTE: Commands are in beta and so this feature is restricted only to a member or owner of the organization.
I have changed a doctest to satisfy for ruff error. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- Please do not edit DIRECTORY.md. This file is auto-generated with a script.
- Please keep the original doctest that you changed. Ruff was failing on that line because the line was too long, not because the test was incorrect.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Click here to look at the relevant links ⬇️
🔗 Relevant Links
Repository:
Python:
Automated review generated by algorithms-keeper. If there's any problem regarding this review, please open an issue about it.
algorithms-keeper
commands and options
algorithms-keeper actions can be triggered by commenting on this PR:
@algorithms-keeper review
to trigger the checks for only added pull request files@algorithms-keeper review-all
to trigger the checks for all the pull request files, including the modified files. As we cannot post review comments on lines not part of the diff, this command will post all the messages in one comment.NOTE: Commands are in beta and so this feature is restricted only to a member or owner of the organization.
@tianyizheng02 Sorry I didnt know about |
@AVAniketh0905 Please fix the failing ruff errors. Some lines are too long. |
The current test case is indeed exceeding the ruff limit. So can I change the test case? # Old Test Case
all(double_factorial_iterative(i) == math.prod(range(i, 0, -2)) for i in range(20))
True
# New Test Case
double_factorial_iterative(5) == math.prod(range(5, 0, -2))
True If you confirm ill do the necessary changes... |
No, I already said not to change the test case. Please break that test case into multiple lines if it's too long. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Click here to look at the relevant links ⬇️
🔗 Relevant Links
Repository:
Python:
Automated review generated by algorithms-keeper. If there's any problem regarding this review, please open an issue about it.
algorithms-keeper
commands and options
algorithms-keeper actions can be triggered by commenting on this PR:
@algorithms-keeper review
to trigger the checks for only added pull request files@algorithms-keeper review-all
to trigger the checks for all the pull request files, including the modified files. As we cannot post review comments on lines not part of the diff, this command will post all the messages in one comment.NOTE: Commands are in beta and so this feature is restricted only to a member or owner of the organization.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Click here to look at the relevant links ⬇️
🔗 Relevant Links
Repository:
Python:
Automated review generated by algorithms-keeper. If there's any problem regarding this review, please open an issue about it.
algorithms-keeper
commands and options
algorithms-keeper actions can be triggered by commenting on this PR:
@algorithms-keeper review
to trigger the checks for only added pull request files@algorithms-keeper review-all
to trigger the checks for all the pull request files, including the modified files. As we cannot post review comments on lines not part of the diff, this command will post all the messages in one comment.NOTE: Commands are in beta and so this feature is restricted only to a member or owner of the organization.
yes sorry i didnt know we could do that. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Click here to look at the relevant links ⬇️
🔗 Relevant Links
Repository:
Python:
Automated review generated by algorithms-keeper. If there's any problem regarding this review, please open an issue about it.
algorithms-keeper
commands and options
algorithms-keeper actions can be triggered by commenting on this PR:
@algorithms-keeper review
to trigger the checks for only added pull request files@algorithms-keeper review-all
to trigger the checks for all the pull request files, including the modified files. As we cannot post review comments on lines not part of the diff, this command will post all the messages in one comment.NOTE: Commands are in beta and so this feature is restricted only to a member or owner of the organization.
I modified your PR description to say "Contributes to..." rather than "Fixes..." because the latter will automatically close the issue. This PR helps with the issue but doesn't fix it completely. |
I understand. Thank you for taking your time reviewing this PR. |
* merge double_factorial * fix ruff error * fix merge issues * change test case * fix import error
Describe your change:
Contributes to #8098
maths/double_factorial_iterative.py
andmaths/double_factorial_irecursive.py
.maths/double_factorial.py
. Which inlcudes the above 2 implementations.DIRECTORY.md
to include onlydouble_factorial.py
file.Checklist: