Dagim H.

[Unlock7]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

📝 HackYourFuture auto grade

Assignment Score: 0 / 100 ✅

Status: ✅ Passed
Minimum score to pass: 0
🧪 The auto grade is experimental and still being improved

Test Details

[mvcatsifma]

Taking this review @Unlock7.

[mvcatsifma]

@Unlock7

Your effort wiring up the SQLite layer is clear, but there are a few key issues.

The implementation was not fully verified against the expected behavior. The output differs (deck 1 returns 1 card instead of 4, and learned returns 1 instead of true), and the migration would fail on a clean setup (deck_id vs deckId). Running the full workflow from scratch would have caught this.

Commit messages are too vague (complete: Task1 & 2.). They should describe what changed, e.g. Implement SQLite storage layer replacing JSON file. Also, Copilot was used in one commit — that’s fine, but the results still need to be verified.

There are no tests. Without them, correctness depends on manual checks, which were incomplete here.

The main gap is verification: the code was not validated end-to-end before submission.

cc @stasel

[Unlock7]

Hi @mvcatsifma

Thank you for the feedback. It helped me to realise where I fell short, especially with the ID shifts caused by manually deleting rows to fix duplicate values. I mistakenly assumed SQLite would automatically re-sort the IDs, but I now understand its auto increment behaviour doesn't work that way.
I've learned to avoid manual database edits and will now prioritise proper testing before handing my work and using proper descriptive commits.
I appreciate the guidance and will apply these lessons in the next iteration.