The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20200831055728/https://github.com/TheAlgorithms/Python/pull/2313
Skip to content

/ Python

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

added type hints for backtracking/minimax.py #2313

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
from
Open

added type hints for backtracking/minimax.py #2313

wants to merge 4 commits into from
+44 −16

Conversation

@Abdujabbor
Copy link

Abdujabbor commented Aug 15, 2020 •
edited

Added type hints and little modification for readability on backtracking/minimax.py

  • 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 Python files are placed inside an existing directory.
  • All filenames are in all lowercase characters with no spaces or dashes.
  • All functions and variable names follow Python naming conventions.
  • All function parameters and return values are annotated with Python type hints.
  • All functions have doctests that pass the automated testing.
  • All new algorithms have a URL in its comments that points to Wikipedia or other similar explanation.
  • If this pull request resolves one or more open issues then the commit message contains Fixes: #{$ISSUE_NO}.
@Abdujabbor
added type hints for backtracking/minimax.py
Loading status checks…
3b12438
@Abdujabbor
Copy link
Author

Abdujabbor commented Aug 21, 2020

@cclauss do we need add some test cases?
@cclauss
Copy link
Member

cclauss commented Aug 21, 2020

Yes, please. And please don't forget the difficult case like depth is -1 or scores is [], etc.
@Abdujabbor
added some simple test cases
Loading status checks…
9282106
@TravisBuddy
Copy link

TravisBuddy commented Aug 26, 2020

Hey @Abdujabbor,
Something went wrong with the build.

TravisCI finished with status errored, which means the build failed because of something unrelated to the tests, such as a problem with a dependency or the build process itself.

View build log

TravisBuddy Request Identifier: 109d16a0-e7c7-11ea-b1e9-0f855a8df5b8
@Abdujabbor
flake fix
Loading status checks…
3616821
@TravisBuddy
Copy link

TravisBuddy commented Aug 26, 2020

Travis tests have failed

Hey @Abdujabbor,
Please read the following log in order to understand the failure reason.
It'll be awesome if you fix what's wrong and commit the changes.

TravisBuddy Request Identifier: 91feece0-e7c8-11ea-b1e9-0f855a8df5b8
@Abdujabbor
fixes doctests
Loading status checks…
862545f
@Abdujabbor
Copy link
Author

Abdujabbor commented Aug 26, 2020

@cclauss look I think it's better than the previous version
@Abdujabbor Abdujabbor marked this pull request as ready for review Aug 30, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
3 participants
@Abdujabbor @cclauss @TravisBuddy
You can’t perform that action at this time.