When I start or reset this, I see the following: Note that the 2nd line of input is missing:
I’ve scrolled up and down and other methods, but that 2nd line of code is always missing.
I ended up typing it in myself, but since this has been brought up on a now-closed thread, I thought I should mention that it’s still unfixed.
There is no “second line of input” that is supposed to be there?
if you are talking of the console.log, you can add and remove them as you want to test your function
Is there not supposed to be a second console.log with different grades, including a 100 score for the student?
no, if you want to test that you can add the console.log yourself
Shouldn’t it just in there by default, or at least in the instructions? Both lines of data are required to pass the test.
As it is now, you have to fail the test to even discover the data, then type in yourself without error, then run the test again.
You don’t have to type that function call yourself. The tests do it for you
Oooohhhh. OK, I think that’s the first time I’ve seen that kind of 'test based on hidden data" in FreeCodeCamp.
Given how much confusion it caused back in an earlier post about this, and since just the single console log is included in the lesson (just to show what’s being input?) you might need to present this lesson in a way that’s a little more clear.
There isn’t any “hidden data”? I have run into this “peekaboo principal” issue before where some learners miss that you don’t have to directly see something happening for it to be possible, and I’m not sure that avoiding the concept is the right way to go.
OK, I finally passed this, and here is what’s confusing: If you fail, it indicates that your test failed in two ways. The first one for a failed grade, the 2nd for a successful grade.
Here’s the 2nd one:
2. Your function call of studentMsg([56, 23, 89, 42, 75, 11, 68, 34, 91, 19], 100) should return the following message: "Class average: 50.8. Your grade: A++. You passed the course." .
“Your” function call?" I never made that function call; I never even met that function call. All that information came out of nowhere, so I thought I had to ‘fix’ my program to include it, which obscured my legitimate error and just gave me new errors to worry about.
(Note that my career was designing videogames, and then educational software: I learned that for people trying to solve problems or learn new things, extraneous data can seriously muddy the waters. This is sometimes intentional in adventure games, but is just counterproductive in educational software.)
As for ‘hidden data’, that’s something that the Norton ebooks do, testing your program with several possible inputs that you can’t anticipate, which is a good system for making your code robust. That’s how I interpreted: “You don’t have to type that function call yourself. The tests do it for you”.
Anyhow, I still believe this challenge needs some tinkering to strip away the confusing feedback. (And t wouldn’t hurt to reiterate in the bulleted tips that the function is just 'return’ing a text element, not logging it.)
