Conversation
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
I am requesting changes because one of the core testing requirements from the task is not yet met. In src/isIsogram.test.js, you currently group several different example inputs (playgrounds, look, Oops) into a single it block with a vague description, so each example is not reported as its own clearly described test case. The requirement explicitly states that each test case must have a clear and unique description, so this grouping is a functional requirement issue, not just a style preference.
To fix this, split that combined test into three separate it blocks, for example: one like it("returns true for 'playgrounds'", ...), another like it("returns false for 'look'", ...), and another like it("returns false for 'Oops'", ...), each with a single expectation. Make sure the test names clearly state both the input and the expected result so failures are easy to interpret. Aside from this, your implementation logic and the general use of Jest expectations look good, and once the tests are split as required, your solution will meet the task criteria. Keep up the solid work—this is a straightforward structural tweak to bring your test suite fully in line with the specification.
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
Important
Fix the issues, commit the changes, and then re-request my review using the Re-request review button2 in the Reviewers tab.
Tip
If you have any comments about this review, please leave a message in the Add a comment section below and mention me with the @mateacademy-ai-mentor tag3.
I will read your message during my next review of your pull request. Please do not reply directly to my comments, as that feature is not supported yet.
Caution
Do not close the pull request until the review is complete. Closing it early can lead to unexpected behavior and disrupt the review process.
Footnotes
src/isIsogram.test.js
Outdated
| it('should be right result for different situation', () => { | ||
| expect(isIsogram('playgrounds')).toBe(true); | ||
| expect(isIsogram('look')).toBe(false); | ||
| expect(isIsogram('Oops')).toBe(false); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This it groups multiple example assertions under a single vague description. The task requires each test case to have a clear and unique description. Split this into separate it blocks (one for playgrounds => true, one for look => false, one for Oops => false) with descriptive names so each example is tested individually.
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, the pull request review was unsuccessful for the following reasons:
Warning
No changes were made in the pull request since the last review. Please make sure that you have added files to the pull request and committed the changes.
[CODE: NCM]
If the issue is within your control, please address it.
The next review attempt will automatically launch in about 1 hour.
If you believe this is an error or need assistance, please contact the support team.
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
I am approving your solution because it fully meets the functional and testing requirements for the isogram task. Your isIsogram implementation correctly handles case-insensitivity by lowercasing the input, detects repeated letters regardless of position, and treats the empty string as an isogram as required. The Jest test file clearly declares the function and includes separate, single-expectation test cases for all specified examples ('playgrounds', 'look', 'Adam', '', and 'Oops'), which ensures good coverage of the core behavior. There are no critical issues or blockers: the function works as intended and the tests accurately verify the required behavior. As a minor improvement, you could make some test descriptions even more explicit (for example, including both the input and expected outcome in the it description) and optionally add a couple of extra edge cases for broader coverage, but these are purely polish and not required for completion. Overall, this is solid work that cleanly satisfies the task’s expectations.
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
Footnotes
2 participants
No description provided.