Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly
Sign up
Appearance settings

feat: Add algorithm and tests for Project Euler Problem 29 (Distinct Powers) #1776

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

Open
zeal-2004 wants to merge 1 commit into TheAlgorithms:master
base: master
Choose a base branch
Loading
from zeal-2004:master

Conversation

Copy link

@zeal-2004 zeal-2004 commented May 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Open in Gitpod know more

A PR for adding the algorithm and tests for Project-Euler Problem 29.

Vitest has been successfully carried passing all test cases.

Describe your change:

  • Add an algorithm?
  • Fix a bug or typo in an existing algorithm?
  • Documentation change?

Checklist:

  • I have read CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • This pull request is all my own work -- I have not plagiarized.
  • I know that pull requests will not be merged if they fail the automated tests.
  • This PR only changes one algorithm file. To ease review, please open separate PRs for separate algorithms.
  • All new JavaScript files are placed inside an existing directory.
  • All filenames should use the UpperCamelCase (PascalCase) style. There should be no spaces in filenames.
    Example:UserProfile.js is allowed but userprofile.js,Userprofile.js,user-Profile.js,userProfile.js are not
  • All new algorithms have a URL in their comments that points to Wikipedia or another similar explanation.
  • If this pull request resolves one or more open issues then the commit message contains Fixes: #{$ISSUE_NO}.

Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 85.88%. Comparing base (1d252d7) to head (47e3ef4).

Additional details and impacted files 
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1776 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 85.87% 85.88% +0.01% 
==========================================
 Files 377 378 +1 
 Lines 19720 19737 +17 
 Branches 3005 3010 +5 
==========================================
+ Hits 16935 16952 +17 
 Misses 2785 2785

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

it('should throw error when number is negative', () => {
expect(() => distinctPowers(-3)).toThrowError('Power out of scope')
})
test('if the number is greater than or equal to 2', () => {
Copy link
Contributor

@pertrai1 pertrai1 Sep 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not use it rather than test?

Copy link
Author

@zeal-2004 zeal-2004 Sep 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Could you be more specific?

Copy link
Contributor

@pertrai1 pertrai1 Sep 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see a couple usages of it(...) and now a couple using test(...). So I wondered why the different usage?

Copy link
Author

@zeal-2004 zeal-2004 Sep 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I referred to other test files for different questions while writing this code and they had this format. I have followed the same as per the documentation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@raklaptudirm raklaptudirm Awaiting requested review from raklaptudirm raklaptudirm is a code owner

@appgurueu appgurueu Awaiting requested review from appgurueu appgurueu is a code owner

1 more reviewer

@pertrai1 pertrai1 pertrai1 left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 2 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /