Build analyzer
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100
Research direction
Start with the analyzer interface specification and the creating-from-scratch guide linked in the issue, then inspect analyzers in other Exercism tracks. Determine the C++ track's analyzer scope and implement it according to the specification. Done means the analyzer produces the required JSON output and the track's config.json has .status.analyzer set to true.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
In Exercism v3, we are making increased use of our v2 analyzers. Analyzers automatically assess student's submissions and provide mentor-style commentary. They can be used to catch common mistakes and/or do complex solution analysis that can't easily be done directly in a test suite.
Each analyzer is track-specific. When a new solution is submitted, we run the track's analyzer, which outputs a JSON file that contains the analysis results.
In v2, analyzer comments were given to a mentor to pass to a student. In v3, the analyzers will normally output directly to students, although we have added an extra key to output suggestions to mentors. If your track already has an analyzer, the only requisite change is updating the outputted copy to be student-facing.
The analyzer is an optional tool though, which means that if a track does not have an analyzer, it will still function normally.
Goal
Build an analyzer for your track according to the spec. Check this page to help you get started with building an analyzer.
It can be very useful to check how other tracks have implemented their analyzer.
If your track already has a working analyzer, please close this issue and ensure that the .status.analyzer key in the track config.json file is set to true.
Choosing between representer and analyzer
There is some overlap between the goals of the representer and the analyzer. If you want to build both, we recommend starting by building the representer for the following reasons:
- Representers are usually (far) easier to implement
- Representers can have a far bigger impact on the mentoring load than analyzers by empowering mentors
- Representers apply to all exercises, whereas analyzers usually target specific exercises or a subset
Tracking
- Dominant language
- C++
- Stars
- 291
- Forks
- 244
- Avg merge
- 17m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from exercism/cpp
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 35/100
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 48/100
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 45/100
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 35/100
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 35/100
Similar issues
-
AuTest Bug Tests
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
apache/trafficserver#13714 ·
-
bug build
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
facebookincubator/velox#19143 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 82/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
tenstorrent/tt-metal#57393 · 1 comment ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
objectionary/eo-graphs#74 ·