Improve checks for hardcoded solutions

[jelaniwoods]

To something like:

if !line[0] =="#" || line[0] == "p" || line[0] == "puts"

instead of include?. This should be more accurate b/c p could appear in a comment (w/ the word # Example for instance) which would prevent the test from ignoring that line.

There is the case when p could be the first letter in a variable, not using the p method, but that should also be safe to ignore since it's not a hard coded solution.

[raghubetina]

Maybe this won't be an issue but what if the # wasn't the first letter in the line? E.g.

# Your output should look like:
    # 5.3

Maybe a regex would do the trick?

[jelaniwoods]

Yup, I think regex is the way. I just wanted to write something down like "check that first letter is not # or first letter is p" somewhere before I forgot since I'd need to test Regex some more.

[raghubetina]

I’m trying to think of a regex that would cover all cases. In english, “If the first non-whitespace character(s) in a line is 'p' or 'puts' , then the rest of that line can’t contain '5.3'”. Would that do it?

[jelaniwoods]

I’m trying to think of a regex that would cover all cases. In english, “If the first non-whitespace character(s) in a line is 'p' or 'puts' , then the rest of that line can’t contain '5.3'”. Would that do it?

I think so. We could maybe use (^\s*)(puts|p) and check the second capture group.

      if line.scan(/(^\s*)(puts|p)/)[0]&.last
        expect(line).to_not match(/5.3/),
          "Expected 'float_find_hypotenuse.rb' to NOT literally print '5.3', but did anyway."
      end

which isn't super readable, but I think does the right thing.