Cape Town | 26-ITP-May| Enice Mutanda| Sprint 2| Data objects by Enice-Codes · Pull Request #1419 · CodeYourFuture/Module-Data-Groups

Enice-Codes · 2026-08-10T22:22:43Z

Self checklist

I have titled my PR with Region | Cohort | FirstName LastName | Sprint | Assignment Title
My changes meet the requirements of the task
I have tested my changes
My changes follow the style guide

Changelist

tested and passed all my code locally
modified the codes
added code to most dependent file
fix codes on certain exercises and implemented code too

Poonam-raj · 2026-08-12T10:17:48Z

+test("creates a country currency code lookup for multiple codes", () => {
+  const countryCurrencyPairs = [["US", "USD"], ["CA", "CAD"]];
+  const result = createLookup(countryCurrencyPairs);
+  expect(result).toEqual({ US: "USD", CA: "CAD" });
+});


I would consider having a smaller starting test for the valid input, to build the test suite up more gradually, prove the function can take different inputs and isn't hardcoded

Poonam-raj · 2026-08-12T10:29:40Z

+test("tally on an array with duplicate items returns counts for each unique item", () => {
+  expect(tally(["a"])).toEqual({ a: 1 });
+  expect(tally(["a", "a", "a"])).toEqual({ a: 3 });
+  expect(tally(["a", "a", "b", "c"])).toEqual({ a: 2, b: 1, c: 1 });
+});


Repeated test as the below - remove and replace with the test described in the comment

Poonam-raj · 2026-08-12T10:30:11Z

+test("tally on an array with duplicate items returns counts for each unique item", () => {
+  expect(tally(["a"])).toEqual({ a: 1 });
+  expect(tally(["a", "a", "a"])).toEqual({ a: 3 });
+  expect(tally(["a", "a", "b", "c"])).toEqual({ a: 2, b: 1, c: 1 });
+});
+


I would argue these are three different behaviours - how might you split them up in the test suite?

Poonam-raj · 2026-08-12T10:30:33Z

+test("tally on an array with duplicate items returns counts for each unique item", () => {
+  expect(tally(["a"])).toEqual({ a: 1 });
+  expect(tally(["a", "a", "a"])).toEqual({ a: 3 });
+  expect(tally(["a", "a", "b", "c"])).toEqual({ a: 2, b: 1, c: 1 });
+});


Again a repeated test - remove and replace with valid test for the given commented behaviour

Poonam-raj

Missing debug elements here - can you include it in this PR?

I have a few things I'd like you to take another look at, a few answers and explanations are missing. Some tests are also wrong (tally).

Some good logic choices, and methods used.

Poonam-raj · 2026-08-17T09:35:41Z

+// }
+
+// a) What is the current return value when invert is called with { a: 1 }?
+// -> { key: 1, "1": "a" }


Not quite

The original code read as this

function invert(obj) { const invertedObj = {}; for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(obj)) { invertedObj.key = value; } return invertedObj; }

Can you give me a corrected answer based on the original code here?

Poonam-raj · 2026-08-17T09:36:43Z

+// b) What is the current return value when invert is called with { a: 1, b: 2 }?
+// -> { key: 2, "1": "a", "2": "b" }
+//    Each loop iteration overwrites the same literal "key" property, so
+//    only the last value assigned to it survives - here, 2 from { b: 2 }.


If each iteration overwrites to the same literal "key" property take another look at your answer - { key: 2, "1": "a", "2": "b" }

Your answer isn't quite right here

Poonam-raj · 2026-08-17T09:37:09Z

+// -> The bug is `invertedObj.key = value`. Because "key" is written as a
+//    literal property name (dot notation), it always sets a property
+//    called "key" rather than using the value of the loop variable
+//    `key`. Only bracket notation - invertedObj[key] - would use the
+//    variable's actual value as the property name. This line also isn't
+//    needed at all for a correct inversion; it should be removed.


great explanation

Poonam-raj

Just some last bits where your explanation doesn't quite match up

Enice-Codes added 2 commits August 7, 2026 01:19

Complete all Sprint 1 tasks: dedupe, sum, max, median, includes

22d78b2

all tasks modified

f4a3df7

Enice-Codes added Needs Review Trainee to add when requesting review. PRs without this label will not be reviewed. javascript Pull requests that update javascript code labels Aug 10, 2026

Poonam-raj added Review in progress This review is currently being reviewed. This label will be replaced by "Reviewed" soon. and removed Needs Review Trainee to add when requesting review. PRs without this label will not be reviewed. labels Aug 12, 2026