Tell us what’s happening:
Tests for the Metric-Imperial Converter project seems to be not functioning at all. When I input any url (e.g. https://google.com/) in the form as ‘solution’, all tests pass and I am prompted to submit project and continue.
I am wondering if this is a bug which should not be happening, or if I’m being trusted to test and complete the project on my own.
Your code so far
I have not yet coded anything.
Your browser information:
User Agent is: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:75.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/75.0.
Challenge: Information Security and Quality Assurance Projects - Metric-Imperial Converter
For now, you are expected to be honest with your submissions. Submissions towards certifications are checked, and a certification will be revoked if the submission goes against the academy honesty.
Hi @Sky020,
That is quite strange. I have always thought tests for projects are meant to:
Reinforce the core concepts learned or learning areas learners are expected to have mastered at the end of a given module.
Provide room for self assessment for learners. If all the tests are passing irrespective of whether i have followed the user stories or not then how can i assess myself ?
I have also noticed the quality of lessons reduce towards the end of FCC curriculum (a lot of typos, grammatical errors e.t.c generally the lessons are poorly written leaving a lot to be desired. Especially the advanced node and express section ). Can’t FCC do better than this? I know it is a free platform but that shouldn’t be an excuse for providing mediocre content. That section needs to be reviewed or even removed otherwise it reflects badly on FCC.
This sort of this is generally what happens as you get deeper into programming. If you see grammar and typo issues, then the fastest way to get those fixed is to flag the issues on GitHub or, better yet, work on PRs to make the changes yourself. It’s a lot of work getting things set up for full development, but for simple typographical changes it shouldn’t be too bad.
I’m not sure if they have a documented grammar only change workflow, but I would imagine the easiest way would be to
Fork the FCC repo
Make the change in a branch on your repo
Propose a PR discussing why you think your change helps
Have you tried going through the section i am referring to? My opinion is that, the section (in its current form shouldn’t have been released). I am afraid it is not just simple typo and grammar issues. They are serious. This is a platform used by thousands (or even millions - not sure) of people across the world, most of whom are beginners. You will either make this a Learning platform or a Frustration platform (evidenced by the kind of questions being asked by learners).
I have come across simple typos a couple of times which in my opinion can be overlooked but not this. I know it is hard to come up with a platform like FCC for free but it is also important to cut your coat according to your cloth.
You could also put up a PR proposing the removal of this portion of the curriculum. If the section is completely unusable and unfixable, then your PR will be accepted. If it’s fixable, then folks will work on fixing the issues you bring up. There just aren’t as many volunteers as there are problems, as is true in all of Open Source.
I can understand your frustrations with the challenges. I spent far longer going through the tests to see what was needed to pass, than going through the user-story implementation.
However, please understand that many of the issues with the backend challenges have come about due to the various platforms the content is hosted on. No, this should not be the case, but that is why there are open PRs to resolve some of the issues, as well, as open issues discussing a way forward for others. In the past, some files were changed, whilst others were not (files are hosted across GitHub, Glitch, the forum (wiki), and the /learn platform). Some things just go out of sink.
I encourage you, same as what @Jeremy has said, to have a look through the GitHub repo, join in on discussions for improvements (we discuss mostly on GitHub, but also on Gitter, and #contributors) , implement some of your own changes. freeCodeCamp can only be as good as the contributors who join in to help. Such is the nature of a not-for-profit.
Thanks @Sky020. I find it very interesting you spent more time figuring out how to make tests pass than actually implementing the user stories (actual learning). I assume such is the frustration of other beginners as well. My only concern is the fact that such content might push people into perpetuating this false narrative that ‘programming is hard’ when actually the problem is poor structuring of the content from which they are learning. I am glad i didn’t continue with the tutorials. I guess i dodged a real bullet there.
Whilst not the intention of the curriculum, do not dismiss the value and learning I gained from having to peruse the source code to accomplish the tasks.
Personally, I found this to be more similar to actual dev work than if I needed to only follow the user stories. In the real world, even as a full-stack dev, you will almost never write all of the code for a project, and the user stories will often come from people who do not know what they are talking about. Whilst tests are written to ensure code is robust, often the engineers who write them only find bugs in them when the devs use them.
Real-world programming is hard.
All that being said, the tests and challenges are being looked into, to make them in sync, and more likely to allow someone to pass.