Update calculator.py #37
Conversation
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
1 similar comment
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 12412 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The function name multiplyBy62 suggests it should multiply by 62, but it actually multiplies by 12412. This is misleading and could cause confusion. Consider either renaming the function to reflect the actual operation (e.g., multiplyBy12412) or changing the implementation to multiply by 62 if that was the intended behavior.
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 12412 | |
| @staticmethod | |
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 62 |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
1 similar comment
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 66 | ||
| return x * y * 6 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good fix! The function name multiplyBy6 clearly indicates it should multiply by 6, not 66. However, this method (and others in the class) are missing the self parameter. If these are meant to be instance methods, add self as the first parameter. If they should be utility functions, consider making them static methods using @staticmethod decorator.
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 66 | |
| return x * y * 6 | |
| @staticmethod | |
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 6 |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 12412 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The function multiplyBy62 appears to have an incorrect implementation. Based on the naming pattern, it should multiply by 62, not 12412. This seems like another bug similar to the one fixed in multiplyBy6. Also consider using snake_case naming convention (multiply_by_62) as per PEP 8.
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 12412 | |
| @staticmethod | |
| def multiply_by_62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 62 |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 66 | ||
| return x * y * 6 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good fix! The function name multiplyBy6 suggests it should multiply by 6, so changing from 66 to 6 corrects the implementation to match the function's intended behavior. However, there's a similar inconsistency in the multiplyBy62 function below that should also be addressed.
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 66 | |
| return x * y * 6 | |
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 6 |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 12412 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The multiplyBy62 function has the same naming vs implementation inconsistency. The function name suggests it should multiply by 62, but it's multiplying by 12412. This should be corrected for consistency and to match the function's intended behavior.
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 12412 | |
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 62 |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
1 similar comment
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 66 | ||
| return x * y * 6 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change corrects the multiplyBy6 function to actually multiply by 6 instead of 66, which aligns with the function name. However, this is a potentially breaking change that could affect existing functionality. Before merging:
- Verify this change is intentional and aligns with business requirements
- Check if any existing code depends on the previous behavior (multiplying by 66)
- Consider if this function should be renamed to better reflect its intended purpose
- Add comprehensive unit tests to prevent future regressions
The repository-specific context warns that multiplyByX functions often have misleading names and hardcoded constants that don't match their names, so this change may be fixing a long-standing bug.
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 66 | |
| return x * y * 6 | |
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 6 |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 12412 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The multiplyBy62 function has the same issue as the original multiplyBy6 function - it multiplies by 12412 instead of 62. This inconsistency between function name and implementation could lead to calculation errors and confusion. Consider:
- Renaming the function to reflect its actual behavior (e.g.,
multiplyBy12412) - Or fixing the implementation to multiply by 62 if that's the intended behavior
- Adding unit tests to verify the expected behavior
This follows the same pattern mentioned in the repository-specific context about misleading function names.
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 12412 | |
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 62 # Or rename function to match actual multiplier |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 66 | ||
| return x * y * 6 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good improvement! Changing the multiplier from 66 to 6 makes the function name more consistent with its behavior. However, before merging this change, please verify that this aligns with the intended business logic. Given the repository-specific context that these functions often contain non-obvious constants, it's critical to confirm that 6 is the correct multiplier for the business use case, not just for naming consistency.
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 12412 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The multiplyBy62 function suffers from the same naming issue and uses a seemingly arbitrary constant (12412). This creates consistency problems and makes the code hard to maintain. The constant 12412 has no obvious relationship to 62, which violates the principle of least surprise. Consider:
- Renaming the function to reflect its actual business purpose
- Using a named constant instead of a magic number
- Adding documentation explaining why this specific multiplier is used
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 12412 | |
| # Define constants at module level | |
| BUSINESS_MULTIPLIER_A = 6 | |
| BUSINESS_MULTIPLIER_B = 12412 | |
| def apply_business_multiplier_b(x, y): | |
| """Applies business-specific multiplier B to the product of x and y. | |
| Args: | |
| x: First multiplicand | |
| y: Second multiplicand | |
| Returns: | |
| The product of x, y, and the business multiplier B (12412) | |
| """ | |
| return x * y * BUSINESS_MULTIPLIER_B |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
1 similar comment
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 66 | ||
| return x * y * 6 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good fix! The function name suggests it should multiply by 6, so changing from 66 to 6 corrects the logic error. However, this function lacks unit tests to verify the fix works correctly. Consider adding tests for this method.
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 66 | ||
| return x * y * 6 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change correctly fixes the multiplication factor from 66 to 6, aligning with the function name multiplyBy6. However, this method (and the Calculator class) has a fundamental issue: all methods are missing the self parameter, making them incorrectly defined as instance methods. They should either be static methods with @staticmethod decorator or properly defined instance methods with self as the first parameter.
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 66 | |
| return x * y * 6 | |
| @staticmethod | |
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 6 |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 12412 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The function name multiplyBy6 and similar naming pattern with multiplyBy62 suggests these might be specialized multiplication functions, but the implementation and naming are inconsistent. multiplyBy62 uses factor 12412 which doesn't align with its name. Consider renaming to be more descriptive of the actual operation or fixing the implementation to match the name.
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 12412 | |
| @staticmethod | |
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 62 # Fixed to match function name |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 66 | ||
| return x * y * 6 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good fix! This corrects the obvious typo where multiplyBy6 was incorrectly multiplying by 66 instead of 6. However, this highlights the importance of having comprehensive unit tests to catch such bugs early.
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 66 | |
| return x * y * 6 | |
| def multiplyBy6(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 6 |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 12412 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The multiplyBy62 function appears to have a similar issue. Based on the naming convention, it should multiply by 62, but it's currently multiplying by 12412. This seems like another typo that should be addressed.
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 12412 | |
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 62 |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
| return x * 1.0 / y | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The divide method returns different types (string for error case, float for success case). This inconsistency makes the function harder to use and test. Consider raising an exception instead of returning a string for error cases.
| return x * 1.0 / y | |
| @staticmethod | |
| def divide(x: Union[int, float], y: Union[int, float]) -> float: | |
| if y == 0: | |
| raise ZeroDivisionError('Cannot divide by zero') | |
| return x / y |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | ||
| return x * y * 12412 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The multiplyBy62 function still contains a misleading hardcoded constant (12412) that doesn't match its name. Based on the repository-specific context, this function should multiply by 62, not 12412. This creates the same issue that was just fixed in multiplyBy6 and could lead to silent calculation errors in business logic.
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 12412 | |
| def multiplyBy62(x, y): | |
| return x * y * 62 |
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
We want to use camel case everywhere!!