Solution #5241
Solution #5241
Conversation
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
I am requesting changes to your solution. While the core logic for transforming the state is correct and you've done a great job avoiding mutation, the implementation doesn't meet a couple of key structural requirements from the checklist.
Specifically, your code uses a series of if statements instead of the required switch statement to handle the different action types [CHECKLIST ITEM #2]. Consequently, it's also missing the required default case for handling unknown actions [CHECKLIST ITEM #3].
Please refactor your logic to use a switch statement with a default case to fully meet the task's requirements.
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
Important
Fix the issues, commit the changes, and then re-request my review using the Re-request review button2 in the Reviewers tab.
Tip
If you have any comments about this review, please leave a message in the Add a comment section below and mention me with the @mateacademy-ai-mentor tag3.
I will read your message during my next review of your pull request. Please do not reply directly to my comments, as that feature is not supported yet.
Caution
Do not close the pull request until the review is complete. Closing it early can lead to unexpected behavior and disrupt the review process.
Footnotes
src/transformStateWithClones.js
Outdated
| if (action.type === 'clear') { | ||
| currentState = {}; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (action.type === 'addProperties') { | ||
| currentState = { | ||
| ...currentState, | ||
| ...action.extraData, | ||
| }; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (action.type === 'removeProperties') { | ||
| currentState = { ...currentState }; | ||
|
|
||
| for (const key of action.keysToRemove) { | ||
| delete currentState[key]; | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This implementation violates two checklist items:
- It violates checklist item sol #2: 'Use switch statement if you have limited amount of conditions.' A
switchstatement should be used here to handle the differentaction.typevalues instead of multipleifstatements. - It violates checklist item Kisilov_Vadim #3: 'switch/case should always have default case for error handling.' By using a
switchstatement, you should also include adefaultcase to handle any unknown action types.
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
Great job refactoring the code to use a switch statement and adding a default case! The logic is working correctly, and you're very close to a perfect solution.
However, one change is needed to make the code more robust. Currently, you are pushing a direct reference of currentState to the history array. While this works for now, it's a fragile approach because if currentState were ever modified directly instead of being reassigned, it would alter all previous entries in the history array. To prevent this potential bug and meet the task requirements, you should always push an independent copy.
Please update this line:
history.push(currentState);To this:
history.push({ ...currentState });This ensures each element in the history is a unique, immutable snapshot.
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
Important
Fix the issues, commit the changes, and then re-request my review using the Re-request review button2 in the Reviewers tab.
Tip
If you have any comments about this review, please leave a message in the Add a comment section below and mention me with the @mateacademy-ai-mentor tag3.
I will read your message during my next review of your pull request. Please do not reply directly to my comments, as that feature is not supported yet.
Caution
Do not close the pull request until the review is complete. Closing it early can lead to unexpected behavior and disrupt the review process.
Footnotes
src/transformStateWithClones.js
Outdated
| break; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| history.push(currentState); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While this works correctly with your current implementation, it's a bit fragile. If any of the case blocks were to modify currentState in place instead of reassigning it to a new object, all previous entries in the history array would be unintentionally changed.
To make the code more robust and prevent such bugs, it's a good practice to always push a distinct copy to the history array, for example: history.push({ ...currentState });. This ensures each element in history is a unique snapshot in time.
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
Excellent work on this submission! I am approving your solution as it perfectly meets all the requirements. You've done a fantastic job addressing the previous feedback, especially by pushing a copy of the state to the history array to ensure immutability. Your use of the switch statement is well-structured, and moving the common history.push operation outside the block is a great application of the DRY principle [CHECKLIST ITEM #4]. The code is clean, correct, and complete. Well done!
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
Footnotes
2 participants
No description provided.