Repository navigation
A brief for the overdue list that no longer reads as a rule on wrong usage - #85
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…usage The brief of `01-overdue-list` said "The command always exits 0: there is nothing to refuse." The sentence is about the rules of the command, which has none to refuse on. The simulated developer applies it to wrong usage: in three runs of five over the second and third campaigns it sent the blueprint back because an extra argument exits with the code 2, as it does for every command of the host, and once asked that unknown options be ignored too. Each of these corrections is a whole revision of the plan, counted against the interview, on a rule no developer would ask for (#82). Refs #82
This was referenced Oct 3, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The brief of
01-overdue-listsaid "The command always exits 0: there is nothing to refuse." The sentence is about the rules of the command, which has none to refuse on. The simulated developer applies it to wrong usage: in four runs of five over the second and third campaigns it sent the blueprint back because an extra argument exits with the code 2, as it does for every command of the host, and once asked that unknown options be ignored too. Asked plainly by a session of the third campaign what it wanted on wrong usage, it answered: "An extra argument gets the usual usage error, exit 2, like every other command. I only meant that listing loans never fails". Each of these corrections is a whole revision of the plan, counted against the interview, on a rule no developer would ask for (#82).What was done
evals/cases/01-overdue-list/brief.md: the rule now reads "The command has no rule of its own to refuse on: asked as the need says, it always exits 0." And what happens on wrong usage joins what is not the developer's to decide: "whatever the other commands do".The acceptance tests of the case do not change: they hold the exit code 0 when nothing is late and when there is no loan file, and nothing on an extra argument.
Tests
The tests of the evaluations pass locally; the CI runs every gate.
What it changes for the campaigns
correctionson this case is no longer comparable with the second campaign, where 3 of its 3 corrections carried this point. That is the purpose: the measure should count the rules the interview did not ask.The other half of #82, the need of
03-overdue-reminders, is left as it is: there the choice is between two cases worth having, and it is the developer's.Refs #82, #77