Conversation
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
|
🔍 Analyzing CI failure for PR #6... Issue found: Test at line 7 expects 🔧 Fixing the assertion to match the correct value... ✅ Fixed! Updated the assertion from expecting 5 to expecting 4 (the correct result of 2 + 2). Changes:
Verification: Tests pass locally ✓ Committed and pushed the fix. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Request changes. The added assertion is incorrect — add(2, 2) returns 4, not 5. This will break CI. The PR description claims "better coverage" but the change introduces a failing test.
|
|
||
| assert.strictEqual(add(1, 2), 3); | ||
| assert.strictEqual(subtract(5, 3), 2); | ||
| assert.strictEqual(add(2, 2), 5); // intentionally wrong to fail CI |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Bug: add(2, 2) returns 4, not 5. The inline comment confirms this is intentionally wrong. If the goal is to add coverage for add with equal operands, the assertion should be:
| assert.strictEqual(add(2, 2), 5); // intentionally wrong to fail CI | |
| assert.strictEqual(add(2, 2), 4); |
|
Reviewed PR #6. The added assertion |

Updated test assertions for better coverage.
Made with Cursor