Build a Periodic Table Database - Fluorine entry issues

Tell us what’s happening:

Error with 1.1.15.
‘Fluorine’ entry does not pass CodeRoad test even though ‘Neon’ does. I have tired have the atomic_mass column set to the NUMERIC datatype, as well as the DECIMAL, VARCHAR, and TEXT datatypes. I have looked through the forms and I have not found anything helpful.

After a while, I looked through the JUint test in the .freecodecamp/test/ to see what the test is looking for that I was doing wrong, yet, I did not find any way to fix the issue.

Your code so far

-- 15. Fluorine
insert into elements(atomic_number, symbol, name) values (9, 'F', 'Fluorine');
insert into properties(atomic_number, atomic_mass, melting_point_celsius, boiling_point_celsius, type_id) values (9, '18.998', -220, -188.1, 3);

-- 16. Neon
insert into elements(atomic_number, symbol, name) values (10, 'Ne', 'Neon');
insert into properties(atomic_number, atomic_mass, melting_point_celsius, boiling_point_celsius, type_id) values (10, '20.18', -248.6, -246.1, 3);

Your browser information:

User Agent is: Chrome/131.0.0.0

Challenge Information:

Periodic Table Database - Build a Periodic Table Database

Hi @alvarez.christian46

Can you post the contents of the tables using SELECT *

Happy coding

Any luck finding the issue?

Hi, @alvarez.christian46 ,

I have to concede that apart from all atomic_mass values being set as type VARCHAR, I don’t see any issue in the table you provided. I am just starting to help with these exercises so be aware.

I suggest you to stick to DECIMAL, don’t try anything else even if it passes other tests.

There seem to be other campers with the same issue as yours in the forum. Can you do a search and let us know if that worked?

For example, I found this:


If changing to DECIMAL still doesn’t improve your situation and you were unable to find anything similar to your issue in the rest of the forum, can you please do the same as @Teller asked, this time showing the tables separately?

Use a SELECT * FROM followed by \d <<table>> for each of them, one by one, before trying a FULL JOIN.

Perhaps your FULL JOIN query is hiding some issues linked to the referencing between the tables. I would also try using USING() command instead of ON and see if I get the same result. TBH right now I am not totally sure if it is more strict in detecting anomalies in the setting of the relations, but you can still try?