[Question & potential add] largest-series-product had a test that is not in this problem specification

[xinri]

While I was fixing an issue (#2959), I faced a new unit test that had this display name: "integer overflow".

In the current problem specification, this test does not exist. I don't know if it is a valid test but it seems so.

So either we add it in the problem specification or we remove it from the LargestSeriesProductCalculatorTest.java

[github-actions]

Hello. Thanks for opening an issue on Exercism 🙂

At Exercism we use our Community Forum, not GitHub issues, as the primary place for discussion. That allows maintainers and contributors from across Exercism's ecosystem to discuss your problems/ideas/suggestions without them having to subscribe to hundreds of repositories.

This issue will be automatically closed. Please use this link to copy your GitHub Issue into a new topic on the forum, where we look forward to chatting with you!

If you're interested in learning more about this auto-responder, please read this blog post.

[blakelewis]

Tracks are allowed to add their own tests (or to ignore tests in the problem specification). This test seems to be a Java-only addition. It produces an answer that is too big to fit into a signed 32-bit value but does fit into 64, so I guess that it is checking that the solution uses long (64-bit) arithmetic. Applying this to other languages might be tricky, as some do not include 64-bit data types, or have an unsigned 32-bit type, or leave it up to the implementation how big a long is (and then you have Python, which automatically uses unlimited precision, so that overflow isn't possible). My inclination would be to leave things as they are.

[xinri]

Thanks @blakelewis for the answer. It is clear now that this kind of test cannot be added in the problem specification as it is java-specific as you mentioned. Good for me, I will keep it like this.