Changes the execution mode for `watch`, asking for user input
We've [observed](https://hackmd.io/-cK6aPhnTwiCiI7u6k0xug?both) that learners can get confused when they do get everything right, but they _still_ get errors... which come from the next exercise, no the one they just edited.
This PR changes it so they have to confirm they want to move forward by removing the `I AM NOT DONE` comment.
* [ ] The particular string is of course subject to bikeshed.
### Alternatives/doubts
* The coolest solution I could imagine would involve a proc-macro attribute `#![ready(false)]` that they could edit once they're done, but it's a bit complicated to set up.
* For now I've put `I AM NOT DONE` everywhere, I think it's what make more sense.
feat: Add enums exercises
Creates an exhaustive list of enum exercises. This goes through the basics of different ways to derive enums with mixed data type variants, as well as the use of the all important `match` operator.
watch: clears terminal before entering loop
Fixes#146
If someone is sliding in and out of "watch" mode, it can make it hard
to tell which error messages are still relevant. This patch resolves
that by clearing the terminal entirely before entering watch's loop.
Note that the escape character is chosen for compatibility reasons, because different shells/terminals can change which commands they accept or have installed, betting on what other commands are in use to collect data seems risky, and just expecting them to implement ANSI escape code sequences is more reliable. This seems especially true since Windows is seeking more UNIX compatibility in its terminals going forward, even though it doesn't implement the POSIX standard per se.
If someone is sliding in and out of "watch" mode, it can make it hard
to tell which error messages are still relevant. This patch resolves
that by clearing the terminal entirely before entering watch's loop.
chore: Clarify comment in exercises/test1.rs
closes#194
The author of issue #194 suggests that the wording of the comment is at
least ambiguous about the desired results. I believe this change more
clearly describes the expectation of the exercise.
closes#194
The author of issue #194 suggests that the wording of the comment is at
least ambiguous about the desired results. I believe this change more
clearly describes the expectation of the exercise.
Add windows install script
Adds a powershell install script for windows users that are at least
running powershell 5. It is almost a direct port of install.sh.
This would be used to automatically download the script much like
curl | bash, but with:
`Invoke-WebRequest https://urltoscript.com | Select-Object
-ExpandProperty Content | Out-File $env:TMP/install_rustlings.ps1;
Unblock-File $env:TMP/install_rustlings.ps1; Invoke-Expression
$env:TMP/install_rustlings.ps1`
Adds a powershell install script for windows users that are at least
running powershell 5. It is almost a direct port of install.sh.
This would be used to automatically download the script much like
curl | bash, but with:
`Invoke-WebRequest https://urltoscript.com | Select-Object
-ExpandProperty Content | Out-File $env:TMP/install_rustlings.ps1;
Unblock-File $env:TMP/install_rustlings.ps1; Invoke-Expression
$env:TMP/install_rustlings.ps1`
fix(errorsn.rs) Update the deprecated syntax by adding dyn to trait o…
fix(errorsn.rs) Update the deprecated syntax by adding dyn to trait objects.
closes#211
Related issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustlings/issues/211
fix(primitive_types4): Fail on a slice covering the wrong area
I noticed this issue and it seems like a similar one was raised/fixed in #160 this way. This is my first contribution to this repo (or any Rust project) so let me know if I messed up or need to fix anything!
---
This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the
slice given is equal to the expected slice.
The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the
user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax.
`rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific
println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not
`run`), they do not output the `println`s at all.
This fix is semantically similar to #198. It does not take a stance on
the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see #127. There are
likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.
This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the
slice given is equal to the expected slice.
The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the
user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax.
`rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific
println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not
`run`), they do not output the `println`s at all.
This fix is semantically similar to #198. It does not take a stance on
the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see #127. There are
likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.
Suggest rustup update in readme
I'm pretty new to Rust. I tried installing rustlings for the first time and got this error:
```
$> cargo install --force --path .
error: `/Users/ajax/projects/rust/rustlings` is not a crate root; specify a crate to install from crates.io, or use --path or --git to specify an alternate source
Caused by:
failed to parse manifest at `/Users/ajax/projects/rust/rustlings/Cargo.toml`
Caused by:
editions are unstable
Caused by:
feature `edition` is required
this Cargo does not support nightly features, but if you
switch to nightly channel you can add
`cargo-features = ["edition"]` to enable this feature
```
I'm not sure if the answer was to run `rustup update` but I noticed that I was running Rust 1.29.0, so updated to 1.36.0 and got it working. If there's a way to specify a minimum required version, pls let me know.
Lastly, the whitespace changes were automatic from my editor. What's the convention here for making such updates? Thanks!
Fix iterators2
A couple of small changes to the `iterators2` exercise. @Jesse-Cameron, it looks like you contributed this exercise, so I wanted to check and see if these changes are in line with your intentions. Happy to adjust if they're not :)
fix(option1): Add test for prematurely passing exercise
Fixes the bug referenced in #160, but does not address the larger feature work referenced by the issue.
