Build analyzer

Open
#215 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
20/100
Issue type
Feature
Clarity
Mostly clear
Activity status
Stale
Domain
tooling

Research direction

Start by reading the analyzer interface and creating-from-scratch documentation linked in the issue, then compare analyzers from other tracks. Check the PureScript track's config.json and identify the appropriate analyzer entry point and exercise scope. Done means the track has an analyzer producing the specified JSON output and its status is reflected in config.json.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

x:action/create x:knowledge/advanced x:module/analyzer x:size/massive x:type/coding

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

https://github.com/exercism/v3-launch/issues/53

Dominant language
PureScript
Stars
38
Forks
35
No merged PRs in 30d

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from exercism/purescript

All issues in exercism/purescript

Similar issues

More DevTools issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.